Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

[Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io>]

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