> > No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available.
> I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses.
No, the argument you were replying to was that they make use of the entire address space, which does not at all require every address to be in use. For example, each of their /16s may be used for a different organization, product, or location, and it's likely that many of the /24s for each /16 are further logically divided for organizational and routing purposes.
The idea the original claim was trying to disagree with was that all the network infrastructure in place was using a monolithic /8 with no logical divisions. Specifically, "them" in masklinn's comment was referring to "blocks", not addresses.
> Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable, they don't "need" them but they do use them and they're part of their network architecture.
You're arguing that masklinn intended to say something he didn't say. I argue that he meant exactly what he said. He said they're using their blocks. You're interpreting blocks as "sub-blocks" but I disagree. masklinn also said in supporting his position:
Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable
Really? If you're anything resembling a network engineer, surely you see how ridiculous this is? And how about this other thing he said:
Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.
Again, really? Multiple public IPs per employee? That's just poppycock. He was wrong, I called him out on it and you can try to re-interpret what he said all you like but the fact is he is just plain wrong. They're not using 16.7MM addresses, they're probably not even using 10% of 16.7MM addresses and assuming that every /8 holder broke their netblocks up in the least flexible and most wasteful way possible is nothing more than an assumption on your part.
> > No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available.
> I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses.
No, the argument you were replying to was that they make use of the entire address space, which does not at all require every address to be in use. For example, each of their /16s may be used for a different organization, product, or location, and it's likely that many of the /24s for each /16 are further logically divided for organizational and routing purposes.
The idea the original claim was trying to disagree with was that all the network infrastructure in place was using a monolithic /8 with no logical divisions. Specifically, "them" in masklinn's comment was referring to "blocks", not addresses.
> Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable, they don't "need" them but they do use them and they're part of their network architecture.