Daniel Senie wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we destroy it). Will
separate /3's, or subdivisions of subsequent /3's, be the best approach to
deploying a large-scale IPv6 network on Mars? (and yes, a bit of work would be
required to make the round-trip times fall within TCP's windows).
We already have numbering systems that are showing their age as they are
hitting their late decades or even older.
Now if decades are good enough for you, how many of them? IPv4 is 3 and
nearly certain to hit 4 and possibly 5. Wouldnt you like to do at least
twice as well?
So calling for a system that should work for at least a 100 years is not
as laughable as it may seem on the face of it -- in fact thats what the
original promise of ipv6 was.
You make another excellent point. There may be other needs for the rest
of the /3's that will take them out of the escape pod role.
Joe
