On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <ADE1A7A6-7177-4C77-8023-60058FDF076B@ianai.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmor e" writes:
On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote:
Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more creative $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime soon.
It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address space to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in the address as flags for things. Suddenly you find yourself using a prefix that should enough for a decent sized country in a half-rack.
It's only slightly harder to imagine a /48 being wasted like that.
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses.
-- TTFN, patrick
But they will when you will exceeded 65536 networks.
Which is exactly what they should do - actually before that one would hope. This is not the "$200/hour chcklehead consultant"'s fault, that is the design. Don't you love the idea of using 18446744073709551616 IP addresses to number a point-to-point link? -- TTFN, patrick