> 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?
