To address everything in the Universe wouldn't you then get stuck in some kinda of loop of having to address the matter that is used by the addresses... i.e. to address everything in the Universe you need more matter than the Universe?
*brain* pop On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>wrote: > My customer the Dark Matter local galaxy group beg to disagree; just > because you cannot see them does not mean that you cannot feel them > gravitationally. > > Or route to them. > > > George William Herbert > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, "John R. Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > > >> You won't have enough addresses for Dark Matter, Neutrinos, etc. Atoms > >> wind up using up about 63 bits (2^10^82) based on the current SWAG. The > >> missing mass is 84% of the universe. > > > > Fortunately, until we find it, it doesn't need addresses. > > > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM > >>> To: John Levine > >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org > >>> Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance > >>> > >>>> In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of > >>>> arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign > >>>> IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. > >>> > >>> we assign them /64s > > > > Regards, > > John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly > > > > -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. [m] 0432 35 4224 [w@] jason dot leschnik <at> ansto dot gov dot au<jason.lesch...@ansto.gov.au> [U@] jml...@uow.edu.au
