Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:51:20 -0500 (EST)

> It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
> maintain it. And yes, I'm going by Actual Live Customer Experience In
> Actual Live Large Companies.

if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
I don't know many companies who decide to do "*astonishingly*
expensive" things if there are cheaper options

Scott

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:14:24 -0600

> expensive" things if there are cheaper options

But they often do things that look cheap in the short run and then
discover the full cost later.

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:14:24 -0600

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 20:30:41 +1100

Date:        Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:51:20 -0500 (EST)
    From:        Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
  | I don't know many companies who decide to do "*astonishingly*
  | expensive" things if there are cheaper options

Aside from Matt's reply (seems cheap, at the start), with IPv4 there
aren't always cheaper options.   One of the early remarks on this
topic was Yakov's (paraphrased) "people will still do NAT with IPv6".
There the cheaper options will exist (or should exist).

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 20:30:41 +1100

kre