4 Apr
2014
4 Apr
'14
12:32 a.m.
I'm not a computer networking professional, indeed you could probably record the total
sum of the truly profound things I know about computer networking on the back of a
postage stamp using a 4 inch paintbrush.
Having this limited world view I was wondering why I sometimes see proposals that 44/8
be given "back" despite the huge volume of vacant IPv6 addresses available for
non
amateur use and decided to do some back of the envelope maths:
I first noted that a fully populated IPv6 address space (2**128 addresses) would allow
every one of the 7 billion persons currently alive on Earth to have a personal allocation
of
4.86e28 unique IPv6 addresses which got me thinking about where I could put my share
and how much space this would all take up.
Noting the long term trend towards computer miniaturisation whilst writing this at 03:56
hrs
(when both rational thought and empty back of envelope space are at a low ebb) I decided
to simplify my size problem by working it backwards to discover the maximum average
size per IPv6 connected node.
I thought it would be most fun to assume that the entire Earth is a giant cluster computer
"of such infinite and subtle complexity that life itself forms part of its
operational matrix"
and made further simplifying assumptions that each node within that cluster is cubic in
shape, is part of a fully populated IP v6 network and that ancillary equipment items (e.g.
power supplies, connectors, cables etc) are either not required or exist in another
dimension (along with most of the white mice who program this behemoth).
If I can still do maths at this hour of the morning, this yields:
volume of earth = 1.08321e21 cu metres
IPv6 address space = 2**128
volume per node = volume of earth / IPv6 address space = 3.18e-18 cu metres
size of each node = cube root of 3.18e-18 = 1.47e-6 metres on each side
It's 0409 hrs here and whilst I recognise my lack of computer networking knowledge and
the high probability of maths errors in my sleep deprived state I am no closer to
understanding why I see proposals that 44/8 be given "back" despite the huge
volume of
vacant IPv6 addresses available for non amateur use.
If my maths is correct, what am I missing?
73 Frank vk2akg ZZZzzzzzz....
on 1 Apr 2014 at 9:04 Steve Wright <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> wrote:
[....] if
it's not going to be routable then why do we need 44/8? use
RFC1918 space and give 44/8 back. [...] We could attract many
into this hobby if we'd simply offer to be the teachers of the IP
networking craft using standards based methods used by everyone else
across
> the internet.