Subject: non-engineers

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:57:01 -0600 (MDT)

This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
  every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
  consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.

> ....that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a
> computer......
> we'll never need more than that!

] As soon as some resource becomes available, something is developed that
] uses as much of that resource as possible - this is a fact of life and is
] natural progression, it's how we develop new technology. Progression in
] any area is a Good Thing, I would be worried if we didn't use IPv6 to it's
] full extent.

Only people who are both innumerate and ignorant of the contexts and
meanings of both the 640K and 5 computers/world remarks say such things.
For example, in its context, the 640K remark was as reasonable as the
partitioning of the phsical and virtual address spacees of the computers
that were used to compose the recent remarks.

Never mind that anyone who bothered to read what Brian wrote knows that
he didn't say that the IPv6 space could never be used up, such as by giving
everyone a ridiculous number of prefixes.  Nothing is foolproof.

Now that we've had our semi-annual dose of address space silliness and
routing foolishness, could we please go back to the business of the IETF,
which is apparently spam mixed with endless repetitions of unreadable
tracts somehow related to Nazis and San Francisco Bay Area museums?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Randall R. Stewart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:39:38 -0500

> everyone a ridiculous number of prefixes.  Nothing is foolproof.
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" :-)

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:43:52 -0400

> that were used to compose the recent remarks.

Also, whether or not Thomas J Watson said 5 or not, it's interesting to go
back and look at how many of the beasts IBM actually *DID* sell - I do believe
that IBM installed one system "on display" in NYC where passers-by could see
the system.  And only 5 or 6 others of that model were made, unless I misremember
my history.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:38:18 +0100 (BST)

> the system.  And only 5 or 6 others of that model were made, unless I misremember

Wood's maxim: those that misremember their history are doomed to
repeat it. On mailing lists.

L.

> 				Operating Systems Analyst

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:44:28 -0400

> repeat it. On mailing lists.

I've been notified by somebody who was THERE that the first machine at
IBM World was the SSEC was a one-off, and the second was an IBM 701, which
had a production run of about 20.

I stand corrected, having confused the first and second machines, and
being a factor of 4 off.  It's been a while since I read the book on
IBM's early history, and I personally didn't show up till the very end
of the S/360/Dec-20 days...
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech