[156451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Baugher)
Tue Sep 18 12:57:46 2012
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:57:34 -0500
From: Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com>
To: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE9485-B405-463E-8CBB-31396B21A51D@consultant.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
>> What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space.
>>
>> Jason
> Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer, not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth.
>
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler@consultant.com
>
Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using
quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that
would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a
waste.
Jason
