[156445] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Wood)
Tue Sep 18 12:20:30 2012
In-Reply-To: <2AF841AB78217140A2A394B2BB6D39C501128733@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com>
From: Dan Wood <dwood@vaul-tec.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:18:50 -0500
To: "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman@integratelecom.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
H
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman@integratelecom.c=
om> wrote:
> 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 of t=
he earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat m=
anner...=20
>=20
> Davis Beeman=20
>=20
>=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 ;)
>=20
> I meant real-world application.
>=20
> Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. T=
here are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance al=
so creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not ge=
ostationary.
>=20
> Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of ear=
th surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and st=
ill not burn through a /32.
>=20
> Owen
I wonder if the medical applications of addressing each cell isn't too far o=
ff.
One could individually group each organ and system in a separate /48 and pot=
entially get a /32...
Just imagine the fun of that OID tree.
--=20
Dan Wood=
