Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > IPv4 Addresses: 5% Left

Reply
Thread Tools

IPv4 Addresses: 5% Left

 
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
On 21/10/2010 8:26 a.m., Matty F threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
>>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
>>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

>>
>> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
>> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
>> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
>> move to IPv7?

> The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> margin.
> Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?


Why did the phone company not start with 7 digit phone numbers from
first manual exchange?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gib Bogle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
On 21/10/2010 8:26 a.m., Matty F wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
>>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
>>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

>>
>> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
>> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
>> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
>> move to IPv7?

> The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> margin.
> Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?


We are all clever with hindsight.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Empson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> wrote:
>
> > It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
> > that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
> > field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

>
> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe


Hardly. 128 bits is about 3e38 IPv6 addresses.

12 grams of carbon-12 contains 6e23 atoms, and the mass of the Earth is
5.9e24 kg (3.5e48 if it was all C-12), so there aren't enough IPv6
addresses for every atom on Earth, let alone the whole universe.

It works out to slightly less than one IPv6 address per square picometre
on Earth's surface. (Earth's surface area being 5.1e8 square
kilometres.)

--
David Empson
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
On 21/10/2010 8:26 a.m., Matty F threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
>>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
>>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

>>
>> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
>> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
>> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
>> move to IPv7?

> The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> margin.
> Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?


The overhead of transmitting IPv6 sized addresses on the modems of the
day (1200 bps) would be one very good reason not to have used IPv6 sized
addresses. >20% of the bandwidth available would have been required
for transmitting addresses at one packet per second.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
wrote:

> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?


We’re talking pre-PC era, back when computers, at least ones powerful
enought to be worth networking, were hefty boxes that had to live in their
own special rooms. Nobody ever thought we’d have a billion computers like
that. And indeed, we never did.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2010
On 21/10/2010 8:26 a.m., Matty F wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
>>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
>>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

>>
>> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
>> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
>> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
>> move to IPv7?

> The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> margin.
> Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?


The resources of routers
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2010
On Oct 21, 9:18*am, Squiggle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> > available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> > Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?

>
> Why did the phone company not start with 7 digit phone numbers from
> first manual exchange?


They effectively did in big cities. You gave the operator the central
office name and number eg Pennsylvania 5000 for New York's
Pennsylvania Hotel. When the London and New York phone systems were
automated, the number became PENnsylvania 5000, and when NY Phone
Company ran out of relevant names, PEnnsylvnia 6-5000 (as in the Glen
Miller song), and finally 736 5000, so the hotel has effectively had
the same phone number for 100 years or so.

In these cities if you dialled a manual number from an automatic
phone, the last four digits were displayed to the 'B' operator who
then completed the call manually. This enabled central offices to be
progressively converted without the need to notify everyone of number
changes.

Letters on phone push buttons follow original USA practice. The
British moved the letter O to zero, and the French added Q to zero (eg
ROQuet 1234), and the Aussies went off on a real tangent having a
single letter on each dial hole so phone numbers were like number
plate numbers. The advent of international dialling (originally by
phone operators) brought these variations to a head - hence all digit
numbers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2010
In article <4cbf4e9d$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On 21/10/2010 8:26 a.m., Matty F threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> > On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
> >>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
> >>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.
> >>
> >> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
> >> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
> >> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
> >> move to IPv7?

> > The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> > margin.
> > Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> > available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> > Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?

>
> Why did the phone company not start with 7 digit phone numbers from
> first manual exchange?


Our old boat, Hinemoa, has a plate above the door with the boat builders
4 digit Auckland phone number.

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2010
In article <1jqpfvy.19m4xo0s41cdeN%(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
> > > that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
> > > field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

> >
> > Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
> > estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe

>
> Hardly. 128 bits is about 3e38 IPv6 addresses.


Prolly need IPv7 within ten years, LOL

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2010
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> wrote:
>
> > Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?

>
> Were talking pre-PC era, back when computers, at least ones powerful
> enought to be worth networking, were hefty boxes that had to live in their
> own special rooms. Nobody ever thought wed have a billion computers like
> that. And indeed, we never did.


I invented a principle (but somebody else may have thought of it
first) that when you are designing something, assume that it is going
to succeed, and design accordingly to allow it to be scaled up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How does .rjust() work and why it places characters relative toprevious one, not to first character - placed most to left - or to left sideof screen? crispy Python 6 08-20-2012 12:45 PM
left shift operator behaves like left rotate when the operand is a variable. pc C Programming 2 06-08-2011 06:58 PM
Help on table align on left of page vs left hanging indent =?iso-8859-1?q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Michaud?= XML 2 07-16-2007 11:46 AM
Left panel on left hand side of desktop on windows xp wish to get rid of Bun Mui Computer Support 1 09-14-2004 03:40 AM
can't reset the left value of a DIV using document.getElementById(thisDiv).style.left = howFarLeft; lawrence Javascript 13 09-04-2004 09:07 PM



Advertisments