--- 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. scott
Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29 assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56 assignment equal to a /24 IPv4 minimum assignment. Historically we spent about 3 decades before running out of IPv4 space. So my scheme should be good enough for some additional decades of IPv6. I just hope nobody else does the same. That would be bad for my business case. Regards Baldur Den 30. dec. 2017 02.11 skrev "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>:
--- 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.
scott
And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6 is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there will be billions per person, hopefully not all on the same broadcast domain.In fact, as you saay, we should treat /64s as a /32 and a /64 for ptp. So each nanobot gets a /64. 10B nanobots per person times 20B people = oh, crap, we've exhausted the entirety of ipv6 an order of magnitude ago. Let alone the fact that actual usable ipv6 /64s is 2 orders of magnitude below that. On 29 December 2017 at 19:12, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29 assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56 assignment equal to a /24 IPv4 minimum assignment.
Historically we spent about 3 decades before running out of IPv4 space. So my scheme should be good enough for some additional decades of IPv6.
I just hope nobody else does the same. That would be bad for my business case.
Regards
Baldur
Den 30. dec. 2017 02.11 skrev "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>:
--- 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.
scott
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Crapse <michael@wi-fiber.io> wrote:
And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6 is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there will be billions per person, hopefully not all on the same broadcast domain.In fact, as you saay, we should treat /64s as a /32 and a /64 for ptp. So each nanobot gets a /64. 10B nanobots per person times 20B people = oh, crap, we've exhausted the entirety of ipv6 an order of magnitude ago. Let alone the fact that actual usable ipv6 /64s is 2 orders of magnitude below that.
(the time has finally arrived) Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/865/
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 02:46:49AM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
(the time has finally arrived) Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/865/
Just how many nanobots can dance on the head of a pin? - Brian
Giving each nanobot a pair of /64s would be absurd. Maybe they aren’t all on the same link (there are no broadcast domains in IPv6), but likely a few /64s would cover each person. Owen
On Dec 29, 2017, at 18:31, Michael Crapse <michael@wi-fiber.io> wrote:
And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6 is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there will be billions per person, hopefully not all on the same broadcast domain.In fact, as you saay, we should treat /64s as a /32 and a /64 for ptp. So each nanobot gets a /64. 10B nanobots per person times 20B people = oh, crap, we've exhausted the entirety of ipv6 an order of magnitude ago. Let alone the fact that actual usable ipv6 /64s is 2 orders of magnitude below that.
On 29 December 2017 at 19:12, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29 assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56 assignment equal to a /24 IPv4 minimum assignment.
Historically we spent about 3 decades before running out of IPv4 space. So my scheme should be good enough for some additional decades of IPv6.
I just hope nobody else does the same. That would be bad for my business case.
Regards
Baldur
Den 30. dec. 2017 02.11 skrev "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>:
--- 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.
scott
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
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.
Think in terms of system architectures where the address space is fully consumed when empty to more than 20 decimal places. Because we're idiots and actually designed it that way. -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
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
participants (7)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Brian Kantor -
Gary Buhrmaster -
Michael Crapse -
Owen DeLong -
Scott Weeks -
William Herrin