On 9/18/2012 12:07 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher <ja...@thebaughers.com> wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher <ja...@thebaughers.com> wrote:
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
Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time
point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that
messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area
Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer,
not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is
probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth.
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using quantum
entanglement as a possible future communications medium that would nearly
eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a waste.
Jason
Recent work (http://www.quantum.at/quest) has not yet established success over
interplanetary distances. Other recent results from aircraft
(http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136312-first-air-to-ground-quantum-network-created-transmits-quantum-crypto-keys)
show throughput results in relatively small bits per second. I'll reserve
retraction for another year or so.
And last time I checked, IPv6 wasn't supposed to be designed to last for
just another year or so. If we're expecting any kind of longevity out of
IPv6, we need to expect that technology will solve these problems and
plan for it. I'd rather not be sitting here 10 years from now wondering
why I'm dual-stacking IPv7 on top of IPv6 because we didn't plan far
enough ahead.
Jason
