Good evening,
This is interesting. You have just succeeded in turning what (I hope) was a friendly exchange of opinions into a patronizing rebuff.
What is most interesting is that I believe we agree that IPv6 address space has to be carefully allocated. We simply appear to disagree on how careful we judge existing allocations so far. And I am beginning to see why.
Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:45, Eugen Leitl a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Romain Riviere wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is, for the time being, catastrophic
>> predictions that we're making the same mistakes as
>> with IPv4 are a little dramatic and possibly premature.
>
> Strange, I provided you with evidence that IPv6 space
> will run out within about the same time as IPv4, using
> pretty conservative assumptions (which we know won't
> hold).
Evidence, no, unless you know the future. Constructive arguments, yes, I'll give you that. But please do not mistake opinions for facts.
>> I agree with you that if every human gets a /32 we
>
> There you go, talking about 7 gigamonkeys, whereas
> the number of embedded Internet devices will hit
> twice that by 2015. TinyOS already uses IPv6 in
> the mote to mote communication. Motes will hit
> um scale pretty soon, and due to limited resources
> they will have to start using IPv6 mutual address
> derivation from local communication constraints,
> which puts IPv6 addresses upon ever-shrinking
> parcels of space. And space is pretty big, especially
> if you think IPv6 will be used in Earth orbit very
> soon, and beyond.
You are therefore suggesting that public IPv6 address space be allocated to motes and other nano-machines. Is this a fact or an assumption ? Why not link-local for example ? And please accept this as an honest question, it really is.
In short, this is the heart of our disagreement, or so it seems. If tomorrow's nano-swarms *have* to communicate using *public* space, then yes, we're already doomed and all hail IPv8/16/42. I had honestly never considered this before, point taken.
>> won't get very far, but for the moment, we still
>> theoretically have about 13'000 IP addresses available
>> for each kilogram of matter on Earth.
>
> Apart from that this is completely irrelevant due
> to above issues, I would like to point out that we will see
> micron-sized devices with IPv6 addresses in
> our lifetime, including very large scale networks
> around the Earth, the Moon, and later elsewhere
> in the solar system.
Then we have to bear in mind that IPv6 simply might not cope with that.
The mass idea was just a (poor?) joke: if we have enough address space for every molecule in the Earth crust for example, we should be safe, until we start creating stuff out of matter from the mantle or elsewhere. But I have to admit that putting public address space into nano-machines make it a completely different business.
>> Until we create matter out of nothing, I still
>> think we're on the safe side. I don't doubt
>
> I'm pretty sure that's exactly what early
> ARPAnet people said when they said 32 bit is going
> to be enough for everybody. I mean, how can
> computers be owned by individual people, never
> mind *multiple* computers?
640k should be enough, etc. I hear ya :-)
>> you disagree, and I'm ok with it :-)
>
> It's too bad I can't see you eating your hat 35 years
> hence :)
Have we entered a contest that I am not aware of ? I am really OK with differences in opinions. Is it really that hard to believe ?
Again, let's not make this personal, shall we ? Because I can't see a reason why it should be and why I should participate in that :-)
Cheers,
Romain
Received on Mon Nov 15 18:26:47 2010