Giving each nanobot a pair of /64s would be absurd. Maybe they aren’t all on the same link (there are no broadcast domains in IPv6), but likely a few /64s would cover each person.
Owen > On Dec 29, 2017, at 18:31, Michael Crapse <mich...@wi-fiber.io> wrote: > > And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots > that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair > your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6 > is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there > will be billions per person, hopefully not all on the same broadcast > domain.In fact, as you saay, we should treat /64s as a /32 and a /64 for > ptp. So each nanobot gets a /64. 10B nanobots per person times 20B people = > oh, crap, we've exhausted the entirety of ipv6 an order of magnitude ago. > Let alone the fact that actual usable ipv6 /64s is 2 orders of magnitude > below that. > > On 29 December 2017 at 19:12, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29 >> assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell >> from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I >> would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56 >> assignment equal to a /24 IPv4 minimum assignment. >> >> Historically we spent about 3 decades before running out of IPv4 space. So >> my scheme should be good enough for some additional decades of IPv6. >> >> I just hope nobody else does the same. That would be bad for my business >> case. >> >> Regards >> >> Baldur >> >> >> Den 30. dec. 2017 02.11 skrev "Scott Weeks" <sur...@mauigateway.com>: >> >>> >>> --- 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. >>> >>> scott >>> >>
