H On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Beeman, Davis" <davis.bee...@integratelecom.com> wrote:
> Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick > head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this > concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface > area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area > of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a > flat manner... > > Davis Beeman > > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 >>> addresses per square cm? >> >> Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional >> computers ;) > > I meant real-world application. > > Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. > There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance > also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not > geostationary. > > Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth > surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still > not burn through a /32. > > Owen I wonder if the medical applications of addressing each cell isn't too far off. One could individually group each organ and system in a separate /48 and potentially get a /32... Just imagine the fun of that OID tree. -- Dan Wood
