Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt.
>
> Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years.  NFC or something similar is the logical next 
> step (it also holds a lot of promise and implications for supply-chains in general, physical security applications, 
> transportation, etc.).

But those chemical tags are generally multiple, not single molecules.

NFC still requires something with a unique radiographic property, so not likely in a single molecule.

> > I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into 
> > segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies you describe 
> > will likely also have related prefix consequences.
>
> Concur, but my guess is that they will be essentially superimposed, without any increase in hierarchy - in fact, 
> quite the opposite.

Indeed, I think we will end up agreeing to disagree about this, but it will be interesting to see what happens over 
years to come.

I suspect that the answer to which way this goes will be somewhat context sensitive. In some cases, hierarchies will be 
collapsed. In others, they will expand. 

Owen