> > > (I will spare you the back-of-an-envelope > > > calculation of how long does it take to send 2^64 blocks over > > > a 100 Gbit/sec link.) > > > > I think this argument is not very relevant. There was a time when > > 2^32 blocks was considered huge and 2^48 blocks was and impossibly > > large size. > > ok, so I will not spare you the calculation: it takes roughly > 550 years to send 2^64 blocks over a 128 Gbit/sec link. This > says nothing about the time to compute things or protocol > overhead, just the time to move the raw bits over the link. > > (2^64 * 16 * 8 bits) / (128 * 2^30 bits/sec) =2^34 seconds > =544.77 years
I'm afraid in your zeal to calculate you missed the point I was making. There was a time when the transmission of 2^36 blocks would have taken about 544 years as well. And there will be points in the future when it will take much less than 544 years to transmit 2^64 blocks. In proposing any cryptographic process, it is important to analyze the strengths and weaknesses the proposal. This information must be presented so that current and future readers can better evaluate the adequacy of the standard to this given environment / application. >From the point of view of those who feel that 2^64 blocks will be an impossibly huge amount of data to ever cross a bus, stating that LRW should be limited to 2^64 blocks should be viewed as a strength of the proposal. Others, particularly those in the future, may see 2^64 blocks as a limitation that needs to be considered. chongo () /\oo/\
