Hello Guangling,
IP addresses are designed to facilitate the routing of data between two devices, not to identify an specific packet of medication (or book, or even a box of cereal). Working on the theory that the pharmaceutical company announced a /32 from their AS to their upstream providers, and someone accessed an address that was assigned to a box of medication, naturally traffic would not get to that box of medication. As David Conrad pointed out, there are a myriad of other identification schemes available for this purpose. This also does not address the issue of what happens to the IP address that is assigned to the item once it has been consumed or discarded. I do not see any benefits at all to using IPv6 address space to identify non-electronic items.
As you've identified, an IoT device only requires a single address, being a /128 address. In a /48 assignment (as opposed to an allocation which is intended for further delegation to downstream customers), the number of available IPv6 addresses in a /48 is 2^80 (or 25 digits long). If the idea was to gain concensus, a /32 would be way too big and even though a /48 would still be way too big, it is the smallest assignment that can be made under current policy.
While I do support the usage of IPv6 address space for IoT device connectivity, I cannot support its use to identify devices that cannot and never will be connected to the internet.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
