Re: 192.168 - why?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

AZ Nomad wrote:
\[snippage]

Who the *** has thousands of machines at home? I'm a serious geek
and never need more than a dozen address, including vmware session on
my main desktop that aren't using hostonly or NAT.

If you have several hundred thousand machines, you can probably afford a
more sophisticated network than what suffice for a home network.

Very true, but the use of RFC-1918 addresses is not limited to home
users. The Very Large Corporation I work for has been migrating from
publicly routable address space for servers in datacenters, and more
importantly, desktops, in order to

a) conserve IPv4 address space allocated to us, and;
b) improve routing internally, by allowing sane aggregation, and;
c) improving security by being able to drop RFC-1918 addresses from
inside the network at the border, as all routers that are connected to
the Internet at large should.


The last thing is, NAT and more importantly PAT have finite resources
when the number of hosts behind them increase to certain levels.

Chris

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiKkRoACgkQecRyDK/YpE5xWwCgi2YlZf5UVCHWe6ewHmgSUcKJ
UMIAn0SI5TYKXna+KVcvt6v1OLAOW464
=FxuB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

Quantcast