At 10:59 AM 5/1/02, Chris Charlebois wrote:
>First of all, the idea of my washing machine having a globally routable
>addess is a little scary.  Someone could hack in and ruin my delicates.

A site-local address would be fine for this application, I should think. 
;-) Twenty years ago, the washing machines in the dorms at MIT were set up 
so that you could call them and find out if they were in use. (According to 
my husband who went there.) Of course, that's MIT for you.

Priscilla


>Second, in terms of waste, I understand what you are talking about when you
>bring up the old "640K" arguement.  I remember reading an article 10 years
>ago saying that the 486 processor would never see the desktop, because it
>was too powerful for anything other than servers.  However, 128 bits *is*
>alot, enough that you could take all the publicly routed IPv4 addresses, and
>assign all of them to each square meter of the Earth's surface.  Each square
>meter (and that includes water) could be assigned a full 2^32 address
>space.  Until we start talking about extraterrestrial internets, I think
>that 128 bit will do.
>
>Third, I agree that summarization is a good idea.  But how should it be
>implemented?  I would think geographically.  However, from my personally
>experience, that wouldn't work out the best.  I've been in a office building
>in Minnesota and tracerouted a machine on another floor in the same
>building.  The path went from Mpls, to Chicago, to St. Louis and back.  Any
>intelligent summarization will have to be based on the telecommunication
>providers rather than geography.  Then you have issues of teleco moving,
>merging, failing, reconfiguring, etc.  I don't know that there is a good
>permenent solution.
________________________

Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43003&t=42913
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to