From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] on TCP vs IL
In-Reply-To: Message from David Gordon Hogan <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com>
   of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 19:12:44 EST." <20011121001248.21A1219A46@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <9822.1006302083@apnic.net>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:21:23 +1000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 266ae430-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> >Not to
> >mention gorgeously huge address-space, which makes for consideration of
> >interesting mappings of persistant datastore into the network address space.
>
> You _could_ do that.  But some of us would Persistantly Object.
>
> Do you really want each byte to have its own IP address?
>

Um.. why not? I mean, in the reductionist world of theoretical wanking
of which I am an exemplar, isn't this precicely what persistant distributed
programming is maybe about?

There was a school of thought around this stuff from Glasgow a few years
back doing Persistant Pascal. I seem to recall 128-bit disk addressing being
on the table. This was an analogue, a corrollary of the 128bit VLIW model
of instruction wasn't it? Its not a long jump from disk address to network
address if you consider the namespaces ideas is it?

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net