On Sep 18, 2012, at 09:38 , Jason Baugher <ja...@thebaughers.com> wrote:
> 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 The IP protocol is not well suited to space travel. As such, I think there would be a non-address based scaling limit in IPv6 for that application and a new protocol would be needed. Owen
