[156444] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Beeman, Davis)
Tue Sep 18 12:02:12 2012
From: "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman@integratelecom.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:01:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <548DEE97-B1C4-440B-B3CA-8812428067B8@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick =
head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this con=
centration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area=
. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area o=
f the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a fl=
at manner...=20
Davis Beeman=20
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2=
addresses per square cm?
>=20
> Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional=20
> computers ;)
I meant real-world application.
Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. T=
here are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance a=
lso creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not =
geostationary.
Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of eart=
h surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and st=
ill not burn through a /32.
Owen
