On 3 Feb 2014, at 11:32, Sam Wilson <sam.wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2014, at 11:17, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > >> On 03/02/2014 11:11, Sam Wilson wrote: >>> Let me de-lurk and make the obvious point that using standard Ethernet >>> addressing would limit the number of nodes on a single link to 2^47, and >>> that would require every unicast address assigned to every possible >>> vendor. Using just the Locally Administered addresses would limit you >>> to 2^46. >> >> it bothers me that I can't find any switch with 2^46 ports. >> >> Damned vendors. > > > The back of my envelope says that with my vendor of choice and a 4-deep tree > (7-hop old-style STP limit) of 384-port switches I can't get more than about > 2^34 edge ports. Very disappointing. That would need approximately 57 > million routers, though, and 170 GW of electrical power, not counting the > cooling requirements.
That's a lot of hamsters. Tim
