3 ms·
I've seen those numbers, but they are idealized and only of theoretical nature. They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of whi
by Slartie 8y ago
I've seen those numbers, but they are idealized and only of theoretical nature. They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider, and they do not account for self-used addresses by the provider that aren't within the blocks used to assign to customers. In addition, as I described, I assume the providers also have some customers who need fixed IPv4 addresses, maybe even whole ranges of them, like businesses often do. Those also greatly diminish the number of addresses left over for the "regular" customers.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago>> They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider You wouldn’t believe what a nation with an incredibly cheap labour can do. I can see how they just allocate a few engineers-technicians just to do allocation.
- arghwhat 8y ago"And over there, we have our DHCP server. Well, he's at his lunch break, but that's where he sits."
- pas 8y agoAren't those numbers calculated the same way? So they should be directly comparable. Why do you think that the subnet structure problem is not present for the other ISPs?
- Slartie 8y agoI've never claimed that. My claim was that the real number of customers per IP is probably magnitudes higher than the 2.xx factor from these numbers. The magnitude of "hundreds" might be a bit overblown, but that does not change the claims' general direction.