> On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:11, Scott Weeks <sur...@mauigateway.com> wrote: > > > --- jlightf...@gmail.com wrote: > From: John Lightfoot <jlightf...@gmail.com> > > Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an > argument between people who understand big > numbers and those who don't. > ------------------------------------ > > No, not exactly. It's also about those that > think in current/past network terms and those > who are saying we don't know what the future > holds, so we should be careful. > > > > ----------------------------- > which means 79 octillion people...no one > alive will be around > ----------------------------- > > Stop thinking in terms of people. Think in > terms of huge numbers of 'things' in the > ocean, in the atmosphere, in space, zillions > of 'things' on and around everyone's bodies > and homes and myriad other 'things' we can't > even imagine right now.
Sure, but likely zillions of ocean sensors will share a few /64s rather than getting a /48 each. Do you really think each person needs more than a thousand or so subnets for their wearable sensors? If not, then 1 of the many /48s they can safely consume has them covered. Can I see a possible future in which homes actually need /48s? Sure. But we’ve got more than enough /48s to do that. As I’ve said many times before, let’s see how it goes with the first /3 doing things as designed and intended. If it turns out to consume that 1/8th of the address space while I’m still alive, I’ll happily help build more restrictive allocation policies for the remaining virgin 5/8ths and the fractions of the 1/4 of the address that have a very small number of special use carve-outs (0::/3 and e000::/3). Given that we still have more than 500 /12s free in the first /3 20 years into the process, I’m thinking we aren’t likely to have that issue. Owen > > scott
