[118701] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Tue Oct 27 10:33:51 2009
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:32:09 +0100
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us>
In-Reply-To: <935ead450910270720y62dbf5bsa21c99d0c3c674fd@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig88837EBBAA57930760A982C8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
[..]
> But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or
> thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance
> implications be?
Remember that IP addresses are 128bits, while hostnames (the ones for
the "Host:" header in the HTTP query) are well, quite a bit longer than
that on average.
If thus something like this would become common-place, there definitely
will be quite some people who will be paying some attention on
optimizing Apache.
But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again,
you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache
listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can
move that complete /64 to a different box ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
--------------enig88837EBBAA57930760A982C8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkrnBGkACgkQKaooUjM+fCN+uwCdHze0ZjPXifsfCHo223sfJAC/
w4wAoL7EGZ2+B5D5pp2GebEu6mkIA/AL
=nEUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig88837EBBAA57930760A982C8--
