Re: IPv6 Ignorance

[Dan Wood <dwood () vaul-tec net>]

H
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman () 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.
>
> Owen

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.

-- 
Dan Wood