jason at thebaughers.com
Tue Sep 18 17:21:19 UTC 2012
On 9/18/2012 12:07 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher <jason at thebaughers.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
>>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher <jason at 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.
>>> 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 at 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.
> Recent work (http://www.quantum.at/quest) has not yet established success over interplanetary distances. Other recent results from aircraft (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136312-first-air-to-ground-quantum-network-created-transmits-quantum-crypto-keys) show throughput results in relatively small bits per second. I'll reserve retraction for another year or so.
And last time I checked, IPv6 wasn't supposed to be designed to last for
just another year or so. If we're expecting any kind of longevity out of
IPv6, we need to expect that technology will solve these problems and
plan for it. I'd rather not be sitting here 10 years from now wondering
why I'm dual-stacking IPv7 on top of IPv6 because we didn't plan far
More information about the NANOG