Blockchain and Networking
jk at ip-clear.de
Tue Jan 9 16:33:15 UTC 2018
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).
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
More information about the NANOG