2 ms·
The answer for land was property and inheritance taxes so families couldn't just sit on valuable land non-productively forever. If it cost $1/year*address most
by bradleyjg 10y ago
The answer for land was property and inheritance taxes so families couldn't just sit on valuable land non-productively forever.
If it cost $1/year*address most entities with a /24 or /22 would barely notice, but HP might decide that they don't need 33.5 million IP addresses after all.
- comex 10y agoAnd then we might still be on IPv4 30 years from now.
- RandomlyGen 10y agoThat would unfortunately accelerate the cancer that is carrier grade NAT.
- throwaway7767 10y agoThe problem is that the growth of the internet is up to now exponential. Even if we can get a few more years by spending inordinate amounts of money on reshuffling IPv4 addresses, it won't solve the underlying problem. It'll just delay the inevitable IPv6 deployment.
- bradleyjg 10y agoI've been reading about imminent address space exhaustion and the pending switch-over to IPv6 since I was proud of my five digit slashdot ID. It's easy to get cynical about it.
- throwaway7767 10y agoOh, for sure, people have been warning about it for almost 15 years now (got my first tunnel in the early 2000's). But the difference now is that we've actually reached exhaustion, so I don't think it's fair to say nothing has changed.
- XorNot 10y agoGrowth in routing table sizes on core routers is a bigger problem. IPV6 is massive in part so we can get back to sensibly slicing up subnets and keep routing tables small.
- rogerdpack 10y agoExcept will that happen? ... :)