IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2^64 is 10s of trillions (not just trillions)

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 26 July 2011 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305C021F84D5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1fcQyC1KbUA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C944D228006 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::80:129a:ddff:feb1:e750] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:80:129a:ddff:feb1:e750]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QMKIiY049944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:20:19 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Subject: Re: 2^64 is 10s of trillions (not just trillions)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E2F3B10.9030304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:20:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <77C38E1C-219F-4956-B379-4F9E5253C122@bogus.com>
References: <4E2F2D3C.5070200@gmail.com> <FB11CBF3-C802-4058-B591-0DD23E908224@bogus.com> <4E2F3B10.9030304@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:20:19 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:20:24 -0000

On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Le 27/07/2011 00:05, Joel Jaeggli a écrit :
>> If you're commenting on v6nd draft I don't think we have any intention of connecting ~1.8 * 10^19 hosts to a subnet...
> 
> Yes, commenting on the v6nd draft.
> 
> Listening to the disxcussion it so sounde to me that these were ND optimizations such as to support 2^64 nodes in a subnet.

goal is:

	to retain entries for things that we know under duress
	
	to be able to learn new addresses when that router is resource constrained by prioritizing activities.

the implicit assumption is that memory is a limited commodity and there are higher priority things for the control plane processor to be doing instead of discovering hosts that don't exist due to incoming unicast packets...
	


> Alex
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> 
>>> 2^64 is 10s of trillions (not just trillions) and only for anglo-saxons.
>>> 
>>> 2^64 is exabytes of memory (not giga, nor tera, nor peta).
>>> 
>>> I am not sure you look at adapting nd for these figures.
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email