Join us as we gather around the hedge,
where we dig into technology, business, and culture
with the finest minds in computer networking.
Hello, Tom.
Hello, Russ.
The plant is back and looking healthy. Is
that a new plant? No. It's back. It's
looking healthy, and I got a lot more
light in this room now because of the
rearrangement. So I think the plant's happy with
me. You sent it to the plant hospital
and
Yeah. It convalesced there and then came back.
And today, we are joined by with Jeff
or by Jeff Houston.
So, Jeff, are you in Australia with your
bears and and and
and
Various bits of native wildlife. Yes. I'm in
Australia at the moment, at the height of
summer.
So, yes, it's it's it's a it's a
wonderful time at that point because, you know,
winter's winter. But,
what can I say?
Yes. Yes. Yes. We all know about winter.
Well, we all know about Australia.
We've all heard it's a great place to
visit as long as you avoid the wildlife.
Everyone's got a week. Just remember that. Everyone's
got a week.
Even the even the crocs.
I have seen the videos
of the kangaroos
beating up on people. Okay?
Yeah. Well, they're not cute and cuddly. Just
remember that.
So today, we're talking about v four address
of the BGP table. Right? The BGP table.
And what's going on with the BGP table?
Alright. So talk to me. Has the BGP
table grown? Is it smaller?
Has it, like, exponential?
Is it
more flappy?
Is
it more flappy?
The thing to remember about the BGP table
is that no one's in charge.
Absolutely no one.
And when you wanna sort of join the
Internet or add more things into the Internet
in terms of reachability,
no permission.
Just do it.
Right? So you've got this system
where everyone has to carry
BGP tables. Everyone has to carry that information,
but there's no gatekeeper
on getting there.
It's a completely
unconstrained
system.
So
when you buy your next router
and you go, well, it's gotta last for
at least five years because it was a
big expensive beastie, and I paid some vendor
heaps of money, blah blah blah, then then
the issue is, how big?
Do I need
a million entries in the routing table? Do
I need 2,000,000? Do I need 10,000,000? Now
the thing to remember about this is that
I suspect that
the router line card memory is the most
expensive memory you could buy.
Because as we keep on upping our transmission
speeds, and, you know, I've just heard someone
has done terabit fibre,
then that's an awful lot of packets per
second.
Which means an awful lot of silicon working
very, very hard
to look up the destination address of these
packets
for every packet.
Now, if you've got a million entries in
your routing table,
no matter how you pack that up, that's
going to be 20 lookups.
So in any kind of binary chop in
the most efficient mechanism, it might well be
more.
That's a lot of work when you're trying
to shovel through a few hundred million packets
per second.
So
the size of the table
is actually crucially important. And it's not just
the size of the table today.
It's the size of the table
near the end of the lifetime of the
router you've just bought.
Because if you buy a router to cope
with today,
if the table's growing, you've got a problem
tomorrow.
And so looking at the size of the
BGP routing table and its dynamic behaviour
is actually critically important for
literally everyone who routes the internet.
Okay? So not a small question.
Very big question if your job is pushing
packets.
And by the way, line card memory is
not just
in terms of entries. It's also length of
entry and a lot of forwarding tables
and a lot of forwarding engines. Because
longer entries take up more space, blah, blah,
blah,
types of things that you can run into.
And so, yeah. It's The disaster that is
v six. Yes. That's what I was gonna
say. Yes. V six is where this becomes
an issue. And so therefore, yeah, you you
it's not just it's also rate of change
and all those other things like that as
well.
Yeah. We we can get on to that.
So
let's just talk quickly about v four. And
the issue about v four is it was
tracking
an exponential trend accrue through much of the
naughties of the February.
It was the expansion of the internet into
true mass market retail. And, you know, the
line was indeed up and to the right
and growing pretty quickly.
But at the same time, the pool of
addresses
that we were using to feed that growth
was reaching its end. This is the whole
reason about v six. We predicted it back
in 1990 that we'd run out and, you
know, true to form, a bit later than
we had thought, but nevertheless,
we ran out.
Now, if this was the telephone network
of days gone by, when you ran out
of telephone numbers, you ran out of telephones
to connect.
Simple as that. But in the internet, you've
kind of got these computers all over the
place
who are able to do clever things.
Share addresses.
Fake the fact that you haven't got enough
by sharing them around, sharing them over time,
and even invading some of the, what we
call, the port number space in TCP and
UDP,
and sort of squeezing
10 or even 20 computers onto one IP
address
by by sharing out some pools of port
numbers to each of them.
And so even though we were running out
in the in February and 02/2010
and onward,
the growth of the Internet didn't stop.
Just didn't.
We're running on empty, but no one seemed
to know or care.
And this bizarre situation carried on for,
jeez, right up until around 2021.
Just growth.
At the time when the central pools ran
out, we had about, oh,
100,000
entries in the routing table.
By the time things are getting a bit
tight in 2021, we're having 950,000
entries in the routing table.
Wow.
What a collective act of juggling.
And it was only really in the last
three years
that
the pace of growth has slackened off.
And instead of rising by, you know,
60 to a hundred thousand entries per year,
which is where it was heading, the growth
rate's now a lot, lot slower.
It's
around 40,000
entries per year.
It's still rising. Absolutely. And we're now at
about a million entries in the routing table.
But that frenetic pace of growth
is slackening off.
We're doing around about a hundred new entries
a day in the v four routing table.
So is that a problem?
Good question.
Yeah. Could be.
Could be. Right?
You're juggling you're juggling around two things. And
and one thing is Moore's law,
where we're able, or have been so far,
to cram twice as many gates into a
silicon chip about every eighteen months and do
so at pretty constant price.
So if the cost of routing is, you
know,
$1 per unit of of of routing table,
then as long as your growth is is
less than doubling every 18,
theoretically, there are chips around in eighteen months'
time that have double the capacity at the
same price.
Theoretically.
I was gonna say Moore's law is dead.
Right? I mean, that's what I'm dealing with.
Moore's law is completely dead. Is dead.
We're we're down at
at small numbers of nanometers,
three, four, five.
We don't know how to get to one.
It's kind of the width of a silicon
atom. This is this is physics is getting
in the way, and and further prodigious growth
is kind of not.
And what it also means is you can't
just count on the future to solve today's
problem if you do nothing. Moore's Law won't
come to your rescue.
That's kind of the first problem.
The second problem, though, is that we've yet
to actually figure out how far we can
push photons.
And while
we're getting fiber optic systems
that still increase in channel capacity,
we've got this underlying issue of, well, what
do you do with the silicon at either
end of the fiber?
Because
so far, we've done extraordinary things in digital
signal processing, and it's not stopping yet.
Yet.
And, you know, the latest announcement, one terabit
per channel. And that's kind of, wow. That's
a huge amount of packets hitting the silicon.
So it's the Now, now, is this silicon
photonics,
or is this still electrical interface?
Digital signal processing. It's trying to extract the
digital signal out of the photonics.
Okay. Right. Okay. And there's a relationship between,
if you will, how good it is,
versus the track width on on the underlying
chip. What you've gotta do is
to get more capacity out of a fiber
signal, you've actually got to put more points
in phase amplitude coding space, in Fourier space.
And the sensitivity of detecting that actually depends
on how good your signal processes are, which
depends on how many gates you can stuff
in a square centimeter of silicon, basically. Right.
Yeah. You know, the two are directly related.
What about what about the growth?
Do you have a sense of are we
getting are we getting short are we getting
longer prefixes announced now if we're up to
a hundred if we're down to a hundred
a day, or what's the what's the size
distribution looking like?
That's a linear increase, and and linear's
kind of good,
kinda.
Just depends on how long it lasts and
what the rate of lending is. It does
depend on how long it lasts. But but,
in essence, what's going on right now is
that the average announcement size in in BGP
is still around 3,200
IP addresses.
So it's
slash 20 or so.
We haven't we haven't got to everything's a
slash 24.
If we did, we'd have 4,000,000,000 entries in
the routing table, and
things would melt. You know, 1,000,000 is still
pretty low
in the scheme of things.
The interesting news in v4
is I think it's time to start talking
about the saturation word, the s word.
The pace of growth
is actually
slackening off,
that
the previous heady days of 200 new entries
per day
and more
is now pretty much gone.
And while there are certainly some days that
are exceptions in the routing table,
we're 100 and falling.
A hundred and falling. And that's the number
of ASs.
It's the pace of growth.
The big
Asian powerhouses
of v4 growth
have stopped.
By and large, they're substituting v six wherever
they can because, you know, it's cheaper,
because you don't have to work on the
market
to buy addresses,
v4 addresses at still what is kicking around
$30 to $50 an address.
V six is nowhere near that cost. So
in some ways, the growth factors
in v four are coming down.
It seems that the best of the mathematical
projections in v four, if you try and
curve fit the last five years,
tend to suggest that we're close to peak
v four.
Around about a million entries. And
if those mathematical projections
have any sort of backing to it, that's
where it's going to sit for some years
and then possibly decline.
But that's just maths.
The sociological
sort of pressure is
once it's viable to run v six only
networks,
v four has a real problem. And it's
more like a cliff than a gentle decline
once it's viable.
And part of the reason is
we're now
way inside scarcity price premiums,
scarcity costs.
And that's what's driving, if you will,
this thing about,
well, if I've got a problem and I
need to expand a network right now here
today,
I can buy more v six addresses sorry,
v four addresses, or I can get some
v six.
The only thing that's happening
in the v4 space
are actually clouds,
the only thing that's clouds.
And
the last
big,
big increase in the amount of addresses advertised
in the
routing space,
the size, if you will, expressed in number
of entries in the routing table,
is actually a massive increase by Amazon.
Bill, on the, I think it was the
December 12,
pumped up another, you know,
80,000,000
addresses.
So it's not the clients, it's the clouds.
It's the other side. And interestingly,
it's only Amazon.
It's not everyone else in the cloud business.
Lots of the others who are in the
cloud business are doing it on v four
with NATS.
But for some reason, Amazon has sort of
pulled together a large amount of addresses and
and bumped it into the routing table,
as v four connectivity, which is, you know,
unusual, but they know what they're doing, I'm
sure.
Interesting. So so
yeah. So that means that we're gonna be
watching the v four space not continue to
grow,
but the v six space is gonna start
v six. Yeah? Yes. Which means v six
space is gonna take off, which is not
necessarily a good thing because I don't know.
You know, the average what what is the
average advertisement length in v six right now?
Slash 32.
Okay. So two to the thirty second is?
4,000,000,000.
Yeah. So
4,000,000,000 advertisements.
Actually, it it's kinda weird because the v
six phase is almost
split in half.
The most common prefix is a slash 48.
And if you care to do your maths,
two to the 48 is a very, very
big number,
bigger than, you know, we can cope with.
And so if v six took off and
everyone has their own v six address and
everyone tries to separately announce it in the
routing table, you know, ain't gonna work. Just
ain't.
The v six routing table has a similar
sort of
life and profile to v4,
except it's sort of pushed ten years in
the future.
Where the early days of the internet and
v4 were exponential growth through the '90s and
early '00s,
v six,
that same exponential growth has occurred
in the 2010s.
And it sort of ramped up. But interestingly,
the same slackening off
that we saw in v four, we actually
see in v six.
And even more interestingly,
the relative growth, v four, it's come down
from 200 a day to a hundred a
day, new entries per day. In v six,
it never got to 200 a day except
for one day
in 02/2001.
It it's always been, even this massive exponential
growth of v six. It was growing from
50 entries a day, and this, you know,
finally got to 200. Immediately afterwards, it came
down again.
It's currently growing at about
50 to 60 new entries a day.
So the growth rate's actually slower than v
four.
I wonder why that is given the pressure
on as as the pressure comes off v
four, why? Is it just because these
when you look at a slash 32, it
contains so much that you don't have to
advertise very many of them to cover lots
of stuff? We've given every person
a a computer device. We've given them five.
We're even putting SIM cards in watches.
So where's it gonna grow? Yeah. Don't don't
David. Like
Now, where's the growth?
You know?
At at some point, you've gotta look at
the underlying market dynamics and really do ask
yourself,
where is the next
double in size for the Internet?
It isn't devices you carry because
they're too expensive to double in size because
everyone's got one. It's not cars. It's not
watches.
Certainly not, you know, stand alone computers.
It's not even household devices because we netted
them.
So
Yeah. And and and and and, actually, there's
starting to be blowback on that.
I mean, if you go out on any
social media site of whatever size or whatever,
almost everybody who's a tech person will say,
none of my locks are connected to the
Internet. Thank you.
And, you know,
I think there's a fair deal of
that resistance
to opening up new markets now. We've we've
just kind of done what we can in
this tech mania,
but but now it's kind of a more
sober outlook.
And that more sober outlook actually points to
market saturation.
And
so v six is not, oh my god,
there's this huge amount of v four that
we've gotta cover.
So
what's the prospects?
Yeah. So so that's why I asked about
v six and the space it takes. Right?
So if you take a slash 32,
you could I don't know what how what
is it? It's a slash one twenty eight.
So even if you take the slash 32
out, you know, you're looking at 4,200,000,000
ish addresses
in the slash 32 that are usable, even
if you're doing slash 60 fours on all
your hosts.
So, like,
you don't need to advertise a lot of
slash 30 twos on the global on the
DFZ
to cover a lot of devices. Ah, the
misery that is the misery that is v
six.
So if you're if you're a router vendor,
then you can't assume
that everyone routes to slash 48 or smaller.
You can't make your internals
48 bits wide.
Your lookup tables are a 28
bits wide. They're four times the size of
v four. So the dear old routing table
in v six, which is now kicking around
200,000
entries,
is the equivalent
of 800,000
v four entries. It's the same size.
And as I said, the sad fact is
no one routes one twenty eights.
No one routes 60 fours. We don't accept
that. So most of that massive silicon out
there sitting inside all these forwarding tables,
in v four's in v six's case,
two thirds is zero.
Zero.
You know? You're not actually using
the bottom bits.
Yep. And it it leads to the
rather weird conclusion
that V 6 is the same size as
V 4, really.
And and if we think, oh, well, we've
filled up V 4, and we have, let's
turn to V 6.
But hang on.
It's the same size, dude.
It's no bigger.
It doesn't give you huge amounts of space
because we zeroed that out and don't let
people route it.
So we give homes
a slash 48.
Let me understand this. We give them
how many bits of addressable space per home?
80 bits. Yeah. I guess that's yeah. Yeah.
We're, yeah, we're giving away slash 40 eights
to most networks even at the enterprise level,
not even to a campus.
But, like, I just like, if I have
a data center, I give the data center
a slash, I don't know, 42
or something like that or slash 40 or
something. Right? Yeah. And I use slash 40
eights for everything.
My house. Slash 48. I don't have two
to the eightieth bits of silicon.
I can't imagine Yeah. A a world where
even that would be possible. What is it?
Awesome. My my my summary my summary of
that is it's pretty easy to give away
addresses.
It's pretty hard to to and it's impossible
to give away TCAM.
Right?
Like and I think that's I I don't
know. I I find it funny. I would
have assumed that people designing all these all
the aggregation and all the rules,
I find it funny that they seemingly were
oblivious that there is a physical world in
which this has to live. Like Nobody's
in charge.
Just remember that. Nobody's in charge.
All of this works by mumblings in markets.
And, you know, the address allocation policy
was not driven by folk who make silicon
devices that switch packets.
Was not. Well, I'm not sure now that
you say this. Maybe it was. Maybe it
was maybe it was a clever marketing
campaign.
Cisco would be fine with all.
Beautiful.
Oh, I am. It was them. It was
them that did this insanity. But, you know,
the the issue was no one could kind
of force the issue. And if one particular
area goes, I've got pain,
everyone else goes, get over it.
And so we get these odd, just absolutely
odd outcomes.
Oh, we've got so many addresses.
Let's rebuild v six in the precise image
of v4.
Precise image.
So there's actually no incremental benefit.
And then you wonder
why
the folk who are currently running v four,
and it's around two thirds of users out
there,
don't have v six. You wonder why they
don't feel any pressure to move.
There's no new market. It works.
Amazon just did this enormous amount of v
four address space into the routing table.
What's their v six plan?
I don't know. It works. Their v four
is is
is still there and still going gangbusters.
And so we're we're sitting in this sort
of dual stack world,
and we've hit this dual stack world
at the point where market saturation and Moore's
law coming to an end come to a
nexus.
And what I think we're going to see
is
this transition to a v six only network,
we will continue to bleat on wood
and mumble about, you know, in some halcyon
day in the future, it'll be v six
only,
Perhaps not in my lifetime, all my kids,
maybe my grandkids, you know, blah, blah, blah.
But nothing will happen
because there's no forcing function.
Yeah. And even if there were, I worry,
personally,
because these
so if you think about if you think
about protocols like as having a WASP waste,
right? Yeah. V four sits on top of
or IP sits on top of all the
strange
physical layer stuff
and makes all the strange physical layer stuff
look the same, whether it's a LOHA, SONNET,
token,
token bus, token ring,
all
those all those wonderful
frame relay,
ATF, all those wonderful technologies.
Oh, Ethernet too, by the way. But anyway
but
so so the so IP sits on top
of all that. And then everything else sits
on top of IP, whether it's quick or
whatever it is.
Switching IP for real
is like,
I don't know, it's like it's like pulling
out the centerpiece
in a two foot high Jenga stack
and putting the piece back in
without it falling over, not just pulling it
out. You gotta put a new one in
and get the old one out. Like,
what?
Right. It's not that we're addicted to v
four. We're glued into it.
Yeah. It's it's gonna be hard. It's gonna
be hard. It is hard, and that's what
why we're willing to pay. And and the
transfer market
is now quoting
around,
on average between 30 and $35
an IP address for v four.
And everyone's paying it.
They're paying it.
And so
this kind
of fixation on v four is not accidental.
It's we've built it this way, and it's
really, really hard
to actually back out of that and look
at it again and go, well, I can
replace that with v six.
Only green fields, only green fields actually have
the ability to go right from scratch. It's
v six only.
But even they have a problem.
Like, the Indians have done it. By and
large, the subcontinent is v six only.
And they go, well, I want to use
Amazon.
I want to use Slack. I want to
use all these apps. And they go, oh,
sorry.
We just don't have the V 6 capacity.
You're going to have to somehow
map back into V 4 to get access
to these services.
There's no one out there with a retail
offering
that's doing it in V 6 only.
And that's the kind of the big the
the big problem,
that all of us have to sort of
keep pools of V 4 addresses lying around
in order to make sure that we have
universal connectivity.
If you just used V 6, it isn't
gonna work that well.
Oops. Yeah. And what's and what's rather humorous
in some of these things about it is
some of these networks are actually v six
only internally.
Alternate. And they're tunneling v four. Yeah. They're
tunneling v four on top. Externally, they're v
four. But internally, they're v six.
And, like,
that's how
that's how universal v four is
as an as a way of of accessing
things.
So over in the RIR land where I
work, where we hand out v six addresses,
the last two years,
twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four, would actually
have
the smallest
allocations of v six addresses
for the last ten years,
except
two allocations
completely tipped it the other way.
A mid level bank,
in The US last year
had I think it was a slash 16
in v six,
an awesomely massive allocation.
It's as if they wanted to put a
v six address on every credit card they
issued and more.
That single allocation
was kind of double
everything else we'd done in the previous two
years.
Massive.
And then this year,
over in APNIC,
it's common in fact, it's it's public. All
allocations are public knowledge, so I'm not telling
any secrets. Huawei came out with, again, around,
I think, it's a slash a t. It's
huge.
And it's those two allocations
alone
that have changed the v six picture in
aggregate from, oh my god. No one's interested
in v six to we've just had the
two largest years of address allocations ever, dude,
thanks to just two allocations,
just two.
And, again, this is really hard to explain.
A small number of folk are doing awesomely
big bets on v six, and the rest
of the world's going,
nah, I haven't got a problem.
Not gonna change. Yeah. Now, I do think
SRv6,
if people deploy it,
will cause some v six
allocations,
but they won't be publicly
advertised.
And that's another
big question. Right? There'll be allocations for internal
use only.
And we've already got,
unique local addresses. We've already got the equivalent
of private address space. So to what extent
folk are willing to expose their plans, like
Huawei and this,
rather odd American bank and do a public
address allocation
versus just simply going, oh, I'm just using
private addresses.
Not gonna tell anyone. It's all secret. Well,
yeah. Three f f f has changed that
picture a little bit. Like, the u EULA
addresses are pretty useless for for v for
SRV six, but the three f f addresses
might be
might not actually be something you could use.
It's a big pool, and and who knows
Yeah. Is what I'm saying. But, you know,
part of the issue around with v six
is
part of market saturation,
part of the difference in the change from
network centric networking to cloud centric networking
actually means that the
target of routing and addressing
is lower.
We deal in a namespace, in an application
space.
There's less and less emphasis on what happens
at the network level.
You
know, there's this theory out there that once
the cloud folk have their way,
the evil people that they are,
there will be no routing.
The clouds will have their points of presence
right beside
every access network in every data center.
And so there's no point to move packets
around the world. That's all done in private
networks inside various people's clouds.
It's not you. It's not me. Right. And
and then it's kinda And and then it
becomes all proprietary,
using whatever they wanna use, and all the
open standards go the way of the wind
because why do you need open standards?
Open standards are just an interface into a
cloud.
Exactly. And and we're seeing inexorably
as a market and, again, this is all
just not planned.
This is just everyone trying to optimize, you
know, where they wanna go. As a market,
that's where we're heading.
And that's one of the most fascinating change
in the last, I'll call it a decade.
It's much more fundamental than v six.
V six is a 1980s
architecture the same as v four.
Changing the address space, oddly enough, painful as
it has been, was not a fundamental change.
But this whole issue of
making names
much more important and moving into the cloud
space
is absolutely basic to the way we look
at networking.
Do we need standards?
Oh, in a cloud world, as you said,
maybe, maybe not.
I wanna do SR v six. Well, you
go do it, dude. I don't need to.
Oh. Oh,
I wanna run a new variant of BGP.
Well, you know, knock yourself out. I'm not
a fan. Yeah. Those open source implementations
do it.
Exactly. But the thing is, you can do
it in your little neck of the woods,
and I can do a different thing in
mine because we don't have to exchange packets
at the network level. We exchange, if you
will, application
packets at the name level.
Yep. Exactly. Yep.
And so it's it's an odd world that
we're sitting in that we're being driven into,
not deliberately,
but just millions of small self optimizing decisions
produce this momentum that actually walks away from
most of the common routing and addressing fabric
of the internet.
Wow. We got there in forty minutes to
such a massive conceptual sort of result. This
is kind of, oh my god. You mean
everything I learned is irrelevant?
Yes. Alright.
Let's move on.
Yeah. Right.
Didn't happen. That makes us uncomfortable.
Yeah. I think it's worth looking at. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. So maybe we should get you
back on to talk about this again. I
don't know. I mean, we always like to
have you on anyway, Jeff. Look. I I
do my best in all this,
and it's kind of trying to match the
minutia
of what's happening with individual addresses, with routing
tables, with the amount of churn out there,
what's happening in terms of moving packets around
the world, but at the same time asking,
why are these packets moving around the world
and literally are they anymore?
You know, I've spoken myself and turned a
lot more attention to the domain name system.
I actually feel that these days, there's so
many NATs,
the whole bifurcation in address space.
Does being part of one address space matter
anymore? I look around my home and I
haven't got an IP address that's publicly unique.
I'm behind NATs.
The bits of v six that I have
are so heavily they look like a NAT
even though they're not because,
you know, NATs are are secure, aren't they?
And so v six is built in NAT's
image.
I've got nothing that's accessible inside my house
anymore,
and I'm okay with that, and so is
everyone else.
It's In fact, it's good. It's good. This
is an argument that I had very early
on when they were talking about NATs and
how they weren't a security mechanism.
Okay. I get that they're not purely a
security mechanism. I understand that. Right? Yeah. They're
not in security terms. They're not a true
security mechanism. Right?
But let's be honest, they're fail open.
And
not only they not only fail open,
but they actually they do obfuscate.
And as I said on my mailing list
once, do you not put curtains
in your windows?
Everywhere except for that. Everywhere except for the
good touch.
You know, it's like
Yeah. Yeah. Obfuscation
is important.
Okay? It is a security. It is a
component of a larger security thing. So don't
tell me how useless it is because it
does matter.
It all matters. Where I'm getting to is
this kind of bifurcation of big pictures, detailed
picture
on the Internet. Yeah. And the details point
you down one area of, oh, yeah. The
routing table's still growing. Oh, we're still handing
out addresses. Oh, it's still important.
The big picture kinda says,
were there, dude? Not not so much.
Not so much.
Names are actually critical.
Domain names define the Internet.
And and
this is kind of the underlying change that's
happened. And and the reason why
is actually really simple.
Once you start putting supercomputers on everyone's wrist,
that's filled with software and data. They're
enormously capable.
They don't need to pay the network a
tithe to get
servers. They just extract the servers the way
they want it because
it's a supercomputer, dude. It can do what
it wants on my wrist,
you know, in my phone, on my desk,
wherever.
And and that change of pushing computing out
to the edge has pushed value out to
the edge and taken value out of the
network middle.
We're in a networking podcast, aren't we?
Yeah. Yeah. Also, I think that's a small.
Sorry about that.
Yeah.
Okay. We should wrap up and get you
back on again, Jeff. We should try to
get you on more often along with other
people. But,
cool. Alright.
It's a good I guess I'll start with
yeah. Where where do people find you? Poteroo.
Right? C O H At Poteroo Dot Net
will find me, or you can just look
on the web page for all awesome stuff
about BGB
and my, you know, insane ramblings on www.potaroo.net.
Cool.
Awesome. And I assume you're on LinkedIn and
blah dee da.
Less so these days. I'll be very fashionable.
Alright. Cool. And, Tom, where can people reach
you? LinkedIn. I'll just go ahead and say
I even talked over, so you have to
say it again.
LinkedIn. There I put it down for
you. Thanks.
Alright. Well, thanks, Jeff, for coming on. And
to all the folks out there listening, we
know that we live in an attention driven
economy, so your time is important to us,
and we're thankful we have an audience.
And thanks for listening to this episode of
The Hedge all the way to the very
bitter end. We're gonna have to talk about
what that term means eventually, but all the
way to the bitter end, and we will
catch you next time.