3 ms·
Your concern is, um, addressed in the article.
by xnxn 8y ago
Your concern is, um, addressed in the article.
- kortilla 8y agoIt says you get up to 10^27 of them. While that’s a lot, it’s right back in the ballpark of usable v4 space.
- rpearl 8y agoNo, it's not, it is many, many times larger than 'usable v4 space'. Like, if each of the hypothetical 10^27 displays was given a single IPv4 address we'd run out and still need to assign billions of billions of displays.
- hopler 8y agoV4 is 2^32 or 10^11. You could fit an entire IPv4 with an entire IPv4 nested inside each one, throw them all away and repeat every day for 300 years.
- KMag 8y agoScrew math. I'm still with the OP's darn rec'n'n, it's more truthy!
- stordoff 8y agoIt's _massively_ bigger - (10^27)/(2^32) = 2*10^17. 17 orders of magnitude is not in the same ballpark (you could give every IPv4 address an entire IPv4 address space, and it'd _still_ be bigger (54 million times bigger)).
- Aeolun 8y agoNo, it’s not. My concern isn’t this particular implementation, it’s that implementations will keep using up larger and larger chunks of adressable space. Thinking something is unlimited is the fastest way to find out that it is.