nanog mailing list archives
Re: Blockchain and Networking
From: "Jörg Kost" <jk () ip-clear de>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:33:15 +0100
New devices like the former Brocade SLX even has its own hypervisor on x86-intel and runs an Ubuntu VM for management and monitoring. You can even install your own things, therefore new applications and purposes will rise in the future.
I also believe that dockerization will come to the networks and we will handle routing protocols more like containers that will be linked to the host-os, adding reseller and namespace capabilities and so on.
There will be room for blockchain typeof-handlers that does not need to be a "full node" or a "miner". It could just be a "wallet"-type, that is linked to companies-internal-"light" nodes, to exchanges or registries or $y for purposes, that we might not even think of right now or still need to write PoC for (remind me in $x years).
Jörg On 9 Jan 2018, at 16:31, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in.There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Current thread:
- Re: Blockchain and Networking, (continued)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 23)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Peter Kristolaitis (Jan 08)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Christopher Morrow (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Hugo Slabbert (Jan 09)
- RE: Blockchain and Networking Naslund, Steve (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Michael Crapse (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Filip Hruska (Jan 10)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Saku Ytti (Jan 10)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Brian Kantor (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Jörg Kost (Jan 09)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Miles Fidelman (Jan 11)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking William Herrin (Jan 11)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking valdis . kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Christopher Morrow (Jan 12)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Fredrik Korsbäck (Jan 17)
- Re: Blockchain and Networking Alex White-Robinson (Jan 22)