On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: > Well, I'm curious why is it that Google's owning 7.9 x 10^28 addresses > considered unreasonable, seen in the light of this quote from
Because 96 bits of 128 to a random corporation leaves you with just 2^32 networks of this size left, and because molecular circuitry will give you a ~mole of bits in the volume of a rack within a few decades. Or lots of what today passes for a decent 32 bit embedded in a grain of dust. So I dust a few 10 km^2 of forest with a kiloton of embeddeds, so does Dick and Jane, notice a little problem there? > Wikipedia's article on IPv6: > > "IPv6 supports 3.4 x 10^38 addresses, or 5 x 10^28(50 octillion) for > each of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today." People don't need IP addresses. Machines do. It takes ~30 years to generate a human. Machines are readily produced by the billions, and they're not even yet doing it on their own, growing in deep space. Boiling Earth's oceans, oh my. Try describing this solar system with a ~nm spatial resolution, and circumsolar node cloud with a total mass of, oh, a couple Mercury-sized bodies. > Seems like Google hasn't even got the full share due to Brin/Page. The problem with techies is lack of imagination. ARPAnetters didn't anticipate a time where every human with a mobile device would need one. Now people still boggle when they read about Interplanet, but it completely misses the point: when our machines will colonize the visible universe you have to give them decent standards right from the start. (See, I already told you Fleming's got no chance, none at all ;p ) -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
