nanog mailing list archives
Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats
From: JP Viljoen <froztbyte () froztbyte net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:43:26 +0200
On 10 Jan 2013, at 6:41 AM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
No. A /64 has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses. Even if you had machines that supported zettabytes of data the zone would never load in human lifetimes.
Because hitting things in memory is the only way we can ever respond to a data request. This wording is about as excellent as those who've been quoted on record to say people wouldn't want TVs ("boxes of wood") in their living rooms, etc. -J
Current thread:
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats, (continued)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John Levine (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John R. Levine (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- PTRs for IPv6 (was Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats) Lee Howard (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Måns Nilsson (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John Levine (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Robert Bonomi (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Tony Finch (Jan 11)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats JP Viljoen (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Owen DeLong (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rich Kulawiec (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Barry Shein (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)