[135873] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Jan 30 12:48:53 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D459451.3070207@consolejunkie.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:48:00 -0800
To: Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 11:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> "640k ought to be enough for anyone."
>>>=20
>> If IPv4 is like 640k, then, IPv6 is like having =
47,223,664,828,696,452,136,959
>> terabytes of RAM. I'd argue that while 640k was short sighted, I =
think it is
>> unlikely we will see machines with much more than a terabyte of RAM
>> in the lifetime of IPv6.
>>=20
> I would be very careful with such predictions. How about 2 TB of RAM =
?:
>=20
Yes... I left a word out of my sentence... I think it is unlikely we =
will see
COMMON machines with much more than a terabyte of RAM in
the lifetime of IPv6.
Sure, there will be the rare monster super-special-purpose thing with
more RAM capacity than there is storage in many large disk farms, but,
for common general purpose machines, I think it's safe to say that
47,223,664,828,696,452,136,959 terabytes ought to be enough for
anyone given that even at the best of Moore's law common desktops
will take 9 or more years to get to 1 Terabyte of RAM.
> "...IBM can cram 1 TB of memory into a 4U chassis or 2 TB in an
> eight-socket box in two 4U chassis..."
>=20
> =
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/01/ibm_xeon_7500_servers/page2.html
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/01/ibm_xeon_7500_servers/
>=20
> I don't know who will use it or how much they will need to pay for it =
or
> even when they will be available,
> but they are talking about it (in this case at the last CEBIT in =
March).
>=20
> People are building some very big systems for example with lots and =
lots
> of virtual machines.
>=20
>=20
Yes... My intent, like the 640k quote, was aimed at the common desktop
machine and primarily to show that since 1 TB is an inconceivably large
memory footprint for any normal user today, it's going to be a long long
time before 47,223,664,828,696,452,136,959 TB comes up short for
anyone's needs.
Owen
