On 3 Feb 2014, at 11:58, Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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.
Turns out it's more hamsters than we have in the UK. <http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/> Sam -- Sam Wilson Communications Infrastructure Section, IT Infrastructure Information Services, The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland, UK The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
