4 ms·
Honestly, I'm really curious about this number. 10bits is 1024, so why 999G specifically?
by WhyNotHugo 7mo ago
Honestly, I'm really curious about this number. 10bits is 1024, so why 999G specifically?
- elevation 7mo agoLooks like an arbitrary validation cap. By the time we're maxing out the 64-bit underlying representation we probably won't be using Ethernet any more.
- palmotea 7mo ago> By the time we're maxing out the 64-bit underlying representation we probably won't be using Ethernet any more. We will be using Ethernet until the heat death of the universe, if we survive that long.
- bell-cot 7mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet#History (& following sections) Calling something "Ethernet" amounts to a promise that: - From far enough up the OSI sandwich*, you can pretend that it's a magically-faster version of old-fashioned Ethernet - It sticks to broadly accepted standards, so you won't get bitten by cutting-edge or proprietary surprises *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
- abound 7mo agoLooking at the patch itself (linked in the article), the description has this: > We now support configuring bandwidth up to ~1 Tbps (overflow in m2sm at m > 2^40). So I think that's it, 2^40 is ~1.099 trillion