On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: > the difference between thinking in terms of 128 > bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions > > > I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all > for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing > structured assignments with 128 bits, and several people here have proven to > a > mathematical certainty that no technology here today nor on the horizon can > exhaust this address space undertake the current allocation rules, > *INCLUDING* > using /64s for point-to-point circuit.
I think you just did with that paragraph, at least a little. Allocation rules change over time, or they are "abused" (for some value of "abused") typically via very sparsely populated block allocations. Is the ITU still lobbying for their own large block allocations for resale/redistribution? That is, to become in effect an RIR (albeit global not regional)? Or if not currently might they again? https://www.linx.net/public-affairs/itu-wants-to-control-ip-address-allocation The article is a few years old but it's been in the air. But we shall know in the fullness of time. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
