nanog mailing list archives
Re: DoD IP Space
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 23:24:06 -0800
On Feb 10, 2021, at 04:29 , Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu> wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918 without running out of addresses and without creating partitioned networks.OK.. I'll bite. What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't tolerate partitioned networks? There's eyeball networks out there that have that many endpoints, but they end up partitioned behind multiple NAT boxes.
The ability to tolerate pain is not a criteria for competence. Partitioning (e.g.) the set-top box management network for a major cable provider is, in fact, pain and costly vs. being able to have a contiguous network with unique addressing. IPv6 is the right answer in this case (and virtually any other), but the addition of arbitrary pain thresholds doesn’t meet the criteria of whether or not one can run out of RFC-1918 without incompetence. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: DoD IP Space, (continued)
- Re: DoD IP Space Bjørn Mork (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Ca By (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Owen DeLong (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Doug Barton (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Tinka (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Randy Bush (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Tinka (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Randy Bush (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Tinka (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Owen DeLong (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Owen DeLong (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Bjørn Mork (Feb 10)
- Re: DoD IP Space Izaac (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Owen DeLong (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Tinka (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Jim Shankland (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Andrews (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Tim Howe (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Andrews (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Tom Beecher (Feb 12)
- Re: DoD IP Space Christopher Morrow (Feb 12)