Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu> | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers | Date | 31 May 1999 12:54:23 -0400 |
| |
>>>>> "Albert" == Albert D Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes: > Second is the same argument for a 128-bit IPv6 address. > Sparse allocation lets a large organization with a unified UID > space divide up UID granting by location.
I have a hard time buying the sparseness argument for IPv6 and the same applies here: the limitations of IPv4 seemed to only show up when reaching about 1M machines, which indicates a "sparseness" of about 1000. If we assume a similar sparseness for uids, 32bits still allows convenient allocation of up to 1M people. Not bad.
But the problem generally doesn't come from sparseness itself but from changing uses. If governments start using uids for their citizens, than sparse allocation becomes impractical with 32bits.
Now, I don't care about either of those, but on the other hand, I'd love to be able (as a user) to create subusers with restricted rights (when I run software I don't trust, for example. Or for testing purposes).
So I guess someone will find a use for 64bit uids. But I'm sure the same could be said for 128bit uids.
Stefan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |