On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:11, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
--- jlightfoot@gmail.com wrote: From: John Lightfoot <jlightfoot@gmail.com>
Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument between people who understand big numbers and those who don't. ------------------------------------
No, not exactly. It's also about those that think in current/past network terms and those who are saying we don't know what the future holds, so we should be careful.
----------------------------- which means 79 octillion people...no one alive will be around -----------------------------
Stop thinking in terms of people. Think in terms of huge numbers of 'things' in the ocean, in the atmosphere, in space, zillions of 'things' on and around everyone's bodies and homes and myriad other 'things' we can't even imagine right now.
Sure, but likely zillions of ocean sensors will share a few /64s rather than getting a /48 each. Do you really think each person needs more than a thousand or so subnets for their wearable sensors? If not, then 1 of the many /48s they can safely consume has them covered. Can I see a possible future in which homes actually need /48s? Sure. But we’ve got more than enough /48s to do that. As I’ve said many times before, let’s see how it goes with the first /3 doing things as designed and intended. If it turns out to consume that 1/8th of the address space while I’m still alive, I’ll happily help build more restrictive allocation policies for the remaining virgin 5/8ths and the fractions of the 1/4 of the address that have a very small number of special use carve-outs (0::/3 and e000::/3). Given that we still have more than 500 /12s free in the first /3 20 years into the process, I’m thinking we aren’t likely to have that issue. Owen
scott