<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
i am hoping IP is obsolete by the time we have to worry about these
things<br>
this is a great discussion with opportunity to learn many
perspectives<br>
thank you all<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/18/2014 4:27 PM,
Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5442CD49.6050900@metanethosting.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Arial">This thinking is naive. It is very possible
that even 10000 /48s will not be enough for every indivdual (or
robot) alive. A big issue is how the space will be wasted or
applied in the real world. There is a real possibility that we
may someday create many more connected 'objects' than atoms
spread across the earths surface with a huge % of them allocated
wastefully or hoarded. This is also assuming IPs are often "one
shot deals" where they are wasted and cannot be used again for
some reason. There are many situations today where large swaths
of IPv4 blocks are used once and then abandonded and hoarded by
companies who are accumulating millions of them through ISP and
resource buyouts. The idea of IPs being a one shot deal
signficantly acceletates loss.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/18/2014 7:02 AM, Morizot
Timothy S wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">True,
I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.
However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience
radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit
IPv6 availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">That actually represents a failure to grasp the scope of the mathematics involved. My non-IT physics/math son grasped it immediately when I described the problem with IPv4 and the solution. In fact, his first question when I described the solution was why they didn't go with 2^64 instead of 2^128 since the latter represents more than the number of particles in some very large set I have to confess I don't specifically recall. When I explained it's actually 2^64 networks each capable of having up to 2^64 hosts so you never have to worry about running out of networks or space on an individual network, that made perfect sense to him.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if some radical (or perhaps even incremental) technological breakthroughs made IPv6 obsolete for some reason sometime in the next 25-50 years, but it won't be because we're running out of address space.
Scott
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a>
Please contact <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>