Re: IPv6 Ignorance

[Jason Baugher <jason () thebaughers com>]

On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis 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.
>
> Owen
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.

Jason