Paul Ebersman writes:
> First, assuming that I (as a user of some service)
> must reach a particular, unique machine is a geek
> wish, not a requirement.
Who said anything about users of a service? I want to reach my parents'
machine. They are not geeks, and I am not looking for a "service." Therefore I
must be able to address their machine unambiguously, and this means that their
machine (and mine, for that matter) must have a unique address.
> The folks monitoring and maintaining the machines
> need to be able to get unambiguously to that machine
> but that is a great use of 1918 space.
Only fixed address spaces can be wasted.
> Wasting public IP addresses one per machine when
> there is no requirement seems to violate Anthony's
> claimed concern about address space.
On the one hand, if you assign addresses sequentially, even a 32-bit address
space will last for some time. On the other hand, if you do not use a fixed
address space, there can be no waste. So my concern is not violated.
> Anthony rails here about waste of fixed address
> space yet advocates that in order for us to be
> "pure", we must waste an IP address on every device
> that we need to identify as "unique" on the Internet.
> OK, which do you want?
You can have both, if you use a variable address space.
> Better use of address space or a dictated waste of
> address space for a dubious technical "need"?
See the telephone network for an example of how to have both.
