Barry, The absence of data is not data :)
-mel beckman > On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:05 PM, "b...@theworld.com" <b...@theworld.com> wrote: > > >> 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*