IMO, RFC1918 went off the track when both ISP's and registries started
asking their customers if they have "seriously considered using 1918 space
instead of applying for addresses". This caused many kinds of renumbering
nightmares, overlapping addresses, near death of ipv6, etc.
just checking... does that mean you favour the one-prefix-per-asn implicit
allocation model, or the ipv6 version of 1918 which intentionally doesn't
overlap in order to serve inter-enterprise links, or what exactly?
Paul Vixie wrote:
IMO, RFC1918 went off the track when both ISP's and registries started
asking their customers if they have "seriously considered using 1918 space
instead of applying for addresses". This caused many kinds of renumbering
nightmares, overlapping addresses, near death of ipv6, etc.
just checking... does that mean you favour the one-prefix-per-asn implicit
allocation model, or the ipv6 version of 1918 which intentionally doesn't
overlap in order to serve inter-enterprise links, or what exactly?
I'm saying that running out of IPv4 addresses would not be such a bad thing and because of this should not be unneccessarily delayed.
Pete