Oh, good, the multi-homing discussion again.
(The loud "bang" you just heard was Noel blowing out his brains in sheer
desperation and frustration.)
You're misinterpreting my question. The fault must be mine; I guess that
my query wasn't specific enough. Let me put it another way:
GIVEN that there exists some set of organizations who want to purchase
multiple T1s from multiple independent suppliers for purposes of
reliability and load sharing yet have need for less than 255 unique IP
addresses, and GIVEN that certain extremely popular software products (such
as Netscape Navigator) which are important to these organizations were
developed by programmers who seem to have no knowledge of either efficiency
or the way that the Internet works, and GIVEN that I have sufficient
knowledge about routing as is necessary to fully understand every technical
issue involved, and GIVEN that I have a rudimentary and imperfect
understanding of the political and economic issues regarding IP numbering
and the propagation of routes thereunto, HOW do I resolve the conflict
between justifiable corporate service requirements and the expressed
statements on these mailing lists the past few weeks which seem to imply
that anyone who does not consume at least a /18 worth of address space is
not worthy of being globally routed?
I am asking, I suspect, not for a technical answer (there being none other
than Chiappa's "it's gonna cost"), but the most politically correct answer
to give the organization (which is not Netscape).
PLEASE NOTE: The useful parts of Arizona changed
from area code 602 to area code 520 on March 20, 1995.