dwood at vaul-tec.net
Tue Sep 18 16:18:50 UTC 2012
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman at integratelecom.com> 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 concentration 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 the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner...
> Davis Beeman
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm?
>> Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional
>> computers ;)
> I meant real-world application.
> Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary.
> Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32.
I wonder if the medical applications of addressing each cell isn't too far off.
One could individually group each organ and system in a separate /48 and potentially get a /32...
Just imagine the fun of that OID tree.
More information about the NANOG