Except they legally own those IP blocks because of contracts when rules were different a long time ago. Mob rule, steal people's property!

ARIN already laid out several phases. A few months ago they started to limit how many IPs they handed out, a month ago they started to reject some requests. We're reaching the end game, which includes reclaiming IPs. You will need to prove every year that you still need your blocks more than others, and every year ARIN will get more strict and refuse renewal for some customers so other customers that are more deserving get some. It will start to get painful.

Some CDNs are seeing 18%-40% of web requests from AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast are over IPv6. IPv6 is still growing at an exponential rate for almost a decade now, about 100% per year. At the current about 10% of all USA, given 100% growth that hasn't shown any signs of stopping, we'll be at 40% in two years and 80% in 3 years.

HTTP1.1 is a huge limitation. You need a lot of connections to make any decent use of your bandwidth. I find that even slow websites are mostly a latency vs throughput issue. The data comes in bursted at 1Gb/s, but there are large gaps between the responses.

Not just block sized inserts, but also inserts at block boundaries. And block sized inserts only works for dedup. CoW won't help with dedup off if the blocks shift, but no issues flipping bits or appending.

We don't need a /48 per person, just per household. With 3 people per household, that's saves you almost 2 bits! Meant to be funny. 1 bit isn't that useful of a difference.

More like 5 IPs per computer. Each for different usages.

But my router and switch and computers just crashed, how does IPv6 handle that? DNS servers are critical infrastructure. Shit will break when they go down, get used to it.

What I meant to say in the last paragraph was:

that $2,000 becomes $500 or $300 or whatever the case may be **per household**

You're quite right, but even then the increase in usage per subscriber doesn't necessarily correlate with the increase in speed, that is to say, a 50mbps customer going to 100mbps doesn't necessarily double their usage - it may go up by 20-50% or it may even stay near the same as it was before. A much larger jump, say, going from 2 or 4mbps to 100mbps might have that effect though.

That's why my numbers are padded to account for 10mbps dedicated which is what I'm working from - that works out to a contention ratio of 100:1 for gigabit connections (a stupid metric, IMO) and comfortably allows 1.5TB per month per subscriber if you're assuming an average of 50% utilization on your trunks with some room for burst/peak.

Individual providers would of course tweak numbers according to their customers habits and availability of capacity to other networks, route costs and so forth, but again, what we're talking about here is large ISPs have cores in several separate areas of the country, so what we're talking about is 130tb/s of core routing and interconnecting bandwidth spread across *all* the major ISPs (let's call it 20tb/s and some change each), divided by region (say 5tb/s per region) which is very doable - if I'm in California, I don't expect my ISP to be trying to deliver say Netflix from their Atlanta core unless said ISP is terrible at routing, I'd expect it to come from San Jose or whereever.

Then you're looking at distributing bandwidth from those large areas to any given point over trunks which get progressively smaller as you get to smaller towns - n*100gb turns to 100gb which becomes n*10gb which becomes a single 10gb link for a small town because obviously a town with 1,000 households doesn't need 100gb or indeed 13tb/s to it - and that 10gb link would contended by say 1,000 households (100:1) which roughly works out.

Alright, but how long were those lines in service?

I would suppose that *IF* the ROI on that wiring was 5 years, it's because back in the day, Ma Bell charged a fortune for everything because they could - telephones were somewhat of a luxury, long distance was expensive as hell and so on and so they basically had huge margins.

However, margins are a lot thinner these days but that doesn't change the fact that they're installing infrastructure assuming it's going to be there for 2 to 5 decades, not 5 years. As it was with copper in the 70s and 80s so it is with fiber today and it is still such that in order to upgrade a network all you really need to do is change out the equipment on the other end of the line which (on a per subscriber basis) really isn't all that expensive.

Yes, and my numbers reflect that. The amounts I'm talking about are for the modem and port at the DSLAM *only*, whereas you're kind of bundling the wiring and modem in to a single ROI timeframe which doesn't really work because it doesn't account for the advances in technology which inevitably occur without having to change out any of the wires.

So yes, you have a $120 modem which has an expected lifespan of 5 years = average cost per month of $2. At $5 rental per month it's getting paid off in 24 months and the rest is profit.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that yes, a 12 year ROI on modems/equipment would be unacceptable, but on wiring it's probably about right (depending on your market and all that) and these things have to be counted separately, which is what my numbers were trying to reflect.

BUT what I'm also trying to explain is that when you have $2,000 worth of wiring which has an expected lifespan of 25 years, the average cost per month of just under $7. Assuming this worst case scenario, the amount of the customer bill attributed to that is probably at least $15, so that would make the break-even time would be 12 years (not counting finance and interest costs but that gets too complicated to go in to here) and anything past that point is profit. However, as we know if we're wiring high-density it's much less because a single feed is reaching multiple households and that $2,000 becomes $500 or $300 or whatever the case may be, and when that happens as it would in the case of the project in question, we're looking at maybe a couple of dollars per month as the cost for the infrastructure, not the $33/month you mentioned.

Memristor is an a pseudo-object with a set of meta properties. A lot of things could be technically be a memristor. Human skin can technically be one, but making use of it would be rather difficult. XPoint may be similar to a memristor in a layman's sense, but Intel may realize that XPoint only has the property of storage, which is not the only meta property required. It is also not phase-change because nothing physical changes. Not much information to go on.

The only thing for sure is it is a form of ReRAM.

Nope, not phase change. According to Intel XPoint doesn't have any physical changes, only property changes. Some people mentioned electron spins.
Wiki

10ghz is what they predicted, XPoint already exists.

Intel said they're unifying memory and storage with this. No more distinction between DRAM and HDs, they're one and the same. Of course other stuff needs to happen first, but that obviously indicates that they expect it to replace DRAM. Actually, the explicitly stated they will make DRAM with it.

"Memristors" are anything with certain meta properties. Assume XPoint fits the theoretical definition of memristor perfectly, you can process and store data at the same time.