27 ms·
> We can't have globally routable, unique, random-esque ID precisely because it has to be hierarchical This is not, technically, true. We could have globally-r
by Borealid 6mo ago
> We can't have globally routable, unique, random-esque ID precisely because it has to be hierarchical
This is not, technically, true. We could have globally-routable, unique, random-esque IDs if every routing device in the network had the capacity to store and switch on a full table of those IDs.
I'm not saying this is feasible, mind you, just that it's not impossible.
- bluGill 6mo agoIt isn't just storage - lookup in those tables needs to be usefully fast.
- Borealid 6mo agoThat was said in my comment. The routing devices need to both be able to store the full table, and also to switch packets by looking up entries within it.
- jcgl 6mo agoI guess it depends on what you mean by "impossible." If you only mean that it's theoretically possible, then sure, one can imagine a world where that is done. But even with IPv4's meager 32 bits of address space, it would explode TCAM requirements on routers if routers would start accepting announcements of /32s instead of the /24s that are accepted now. And /64 (or, jesus, /128) for IPv6? That's impossible.
- ikiris 6mo agoAnd if anti-gravity existed, we could have flying cars. Outside of ignoring the laws of physics, this isn’t very useful of speculation.
- Dagger2 6mo agoYou would also need something like O(N²) routing update messages to keep those tables updated, instead of the current... I'm guessing it grows more like O(log N) in the number of hosts. So everyone would need vast amounts of CPU and bandwidth to keep up with the announcements.