News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by antfarm on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:10AM (#13644499)
16 bits can represent 65536 different values, not 65535.
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by StringEpsilon on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:25AM (#13644648)
0 Interfaces 1 Interface ... 65535 Interfaces
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by recursive on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @12:23PM (#13645219)
I can't tell if you're joking, but when you're counting a quantity, you don't start from 0.
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by surye on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @01:44PM (#13645968)
Why not? Is having zero interfaces not distinct from having one interface?
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by recursive on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:46PM (#13646513)
It is. But when you have one interface, that interface can be given the number 0. So you have a total of 1 interface, even though you've only counted up to 0.

Edit: I misunderstood. I'll leave the comment up. But I originally interpreted the story as meaning that each interface needed to be assigned an unsigned 16-bit id, which allows for a total of 65536. That was just inference on my part though. It literally says that more than 65535 are not allowed.

Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @12:43PM (#13645404)
Quantity as in great amount? Either way, sounds like the worst kind of premature optimization to save one bit's worth to lose the ability to ever have the quantity be zero.
Re:65535 interfaces ought to be enough for anybody by ska on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @03:56PM (#13647089)
I suspect it is a play on the 0, 1, infinity rule.