On 2008-01-24 15:16, Tony Li wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Robin Whittle wrote: > >>> However, if we do need host granularity, then I think you need >>> about 3 orders of magnitude more scale, and pure push approaches >>> simply won't get you there. >> >> Yes, but I would say two orders of magnitude - 10^10 as an outside >> limit. > > > Not to quibble, but... 10^10 is only 10 billion. We're about to add 6 > billion cell phones to the net, and the thought of every human having on > average 2 devices within 50 years doesn't seem like it's impossible. > > ~"If an architectural parameter isn't obviously too large, then it's > probably too small."~ > - Ross Callon >
Sure, and nobody has even mentioned sensor networks recently. But is that the point? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be able to map EIDs as long as /128. I'm suggesting that these will be a small minority, and that the size of the map is likely to be in the 10^8 range at most, since most of the entries will be sites (for some definition of "site", but on average, significantly larger than a single household). Brian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
