Waste will kill ipv6 too

Sat Dec 30 05:52:24 UTC 2017

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 at 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 at 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 at mauigateway.com>:
>> 
>>> 
>>> --- jlightfoot at gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: John Lightfoot <jlightfoot at 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
>>> 
>> 