I agree with you on both counts - yes, we are very unlikely to exhaust the IPv6 address space in this century. And yes, we are very likely to run out of MAC addresses first.
But this doesn't mean that "we will never run out of addresses"...
I agree that it is a huge number. But then again, 640KB of memory (a whopping 300 thousands written pages) seemed huge at the time. Or 4.3 billion addresses (almost one address for every living person!).
However, in time, both proved insufficient. So I believe that this is one field where you can never say "this should last forever".
[ Also, read the comment I linked to - when you're allocating 10^19 addresses even if the customer only needs 2, a 128-bit number suddenly seems much smaller... ]
I wasn't saying that you discredited IPv6 (sorry if it came out that way). I was only pointing out that we do not know how technology will evolve, and that it is entirely possible for IPv6 to "no longer be enough" one day.
When you talk about IP addresses and people, you seem to think of the number of IP addresses necessary as being less than or equal to the number of people.
However, we already have more than 1 IP address for each person (look around you: desktop computer; PDA; laptop; router; IP phone; IPTV; and so on). I believe that the number of items capable of network communication will increase in time - and one day it might greatly exceed the number of living persons.
This is what I was referring to in my original post. And I believe that statements like "there is a world market for only 5 computers", "640KB of memory should be enough for anyone", and "we will never need more than X IP addresses" are more often than not contradicted by reality...
People, really - we actually have no idea how technology will evolve, and what uses IP will have in the future! We might have intelligent sensors the size of a dust mite, floating in the air and processing data. All using IP to communicate with one another. Or (as the article suggests) we might have an IP address in every common, everyday item. Combine that with the quite "relaxed" allocation procedure for IPv6 addresses, and you will realize that you should never say never.
Remind me again why we would run out of addresses?
Maybe because some day we might have more addresses than people who ever lived?
Or, even better - maybe because right now the minimum assigned space is a/64? Which means we are allocating 1.8*10^19 (!!!) addresses, even if only one or two of them are actually going to be used.
The old "640K should be enough for anyone" argument isn't more valid now than it was 20 years ago...
Credit card numbers are always highly-financially valuable information, so I'm not sure how this possibly qualifies as a counter-example?
The point I was trying to make was that you could be handling very valuable information while not actually making a lot of money (hence, not being able to afford the sometimes steep price of a certificate from a well-known CA).
Other examples of the same type (sensitive, valuable information, that actually does not bring you money) are the ones you mentioned: usernames/passwords, health records, etc.
But when you think about it, maybe they don't need it? Why do you need encryption and server authentication if you don't do stuff which is highly financially valuable?
One example that comes to mind: I'm selling small gizmos at 1 dollar a piece. Wouldn't really qualify as "highly financially valuable".
However, the customers visiting my webpage are requested to input their credit card numbers, and some of them have millions of dollars in their accounts:P . Can I afford to use a non-encrypted, non-authenticated connection for that?
8 bits == 2^8 == 256 possible addresses. Take out the broadcast and network addresses (.0 and.255) and you have 254 left. Hell, take out even the gateway address as you suggested (although I really don't see why), and you still have 253. Where do the other 2 go?
Hmm, you mean just like my DNA is 99% identical to that of every chimp;)
I was wondering when this will pop up:) . It might be 99% for the chimp and 99.8% with the identical twin, or it might be 95% for the chimp and 99% for the twin. Somehow, I have a feeling nobody can give an absolutely accurate figure.
I remember that during medical school (maybe 7 or 8 years ago) we were told that while identical twins have extremely similar DNA to each other, that DNA is not 100% identical. Maybe 98 or 99% (more than any other two individuals on this planet), but not 100%.
So while this is an interesting research, it hardly qualifies as "news"...
While I agree that this could cause the subject to be accidentally injected with the sedative (by contact between the patch and the vaginal walls), I really don't see the connection between cervical opening and sexual arousal. The size and shape of the cervical opening can vary for various causes (such as phases of the menstrual cycle, giving birth, or specific medical procedures). However, I have never heard of it varying through sexual arousal.
And most of the LCD displays of today have millions of transistors on their surface. Fabricating large arrays of transistors used to be expensive, and was one of the most important reasons why the cost of the first displays was prohibitive. Yet all technologies advance, and products tend to get cheaper... much cheaper!
[ Not to mention that it is probably much easier to make tiny coils than it is to make tiny neon lights (think plasma displays;) ) ]
Yes, you can walk perfectly - but have you ever tried running with your hands tied behind your back? When running, the imbalances are far more frequent and more severe - and if you are unable to use your hands to regain your balance, you will quickly find yourself on your nose.
The wireless wire is already here (think 802.11:P ). Now if we only had cordless power, we might actually experience some mobility... (I cannot talk about "mobility" as long as I'm still tied up with a power cord any time I want to work on my computer for more than 2 or 3 hours)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you on both counts - yes, we are very unlikely to exhaust the IPv6 address space in this century. And yes, we are very likely to run out of MAC addresses first.
But this doesn't mean that "we will never run out of addresses"...
I agree that it is a huge number. But then again, 640KB of memory (a whopping 300 thousands written pages) seemed huge at the time. Or 4.3 billion addresses (almost one address for every living person!).
However, in time, both proved insufficient. So I believe that this is one field where you can never say "this should last forever".
[ Also, read the comment I linked to - when you're allocating 10^19 addresses even if the customer only needs 2, a 128-bit number suddenly seems much smaller... ]
I wasn't saying that you discredited IPv6 (sorry if it came out that way). I was only pointing out that we do not know how technology will evolve, and that it is entirely possible for IPv6 to "no longer be enough" one day.
When you talk about IP addresses and people, you seem to think of the number of IP addresses necessary as being less than or equal to the number of people.
However, we already have more than 1 IP address for each person (look around you: desktop computer; PDA; laptop; router; IP phone; IPTV; and so on). I believe that the number of items capable of network communication will increase in time - and one day it might greatly exceed the number of living persons.
This is what I was referring to in my original post. And I believe that statements like "there is a world market for only 5 computers", "640KB of memory should be enough for anyone", and "we will never need more than X IP addresses" are more often than not contradicted by reality...
:correction: Maybe because some day we might have a need for more addresses than people who ever lived?
And here goes the 640K argument again...
People, really - we actually have no idea how technology will evolve, and what uses IP will have in the future! We might have intelligent sensors the size of a dust mite, floating in the air and processing data. All using IP to communicate with one another. Or (as the article suggests) we might have an IP address in every common, everyday item. Combine that with the quite "relaxed" allocation procedure for IPv6 addresses, and you will realize that you should never say never.
Maybe because some day we might have more addresses than people who ever lived?
Or, even better - maybe because right now the minimum assigned space is a /64? Which means we are allocating 1.8*10^19 (!!!) addresses, even if only one or two of them are actually going to be used.
The old "640K should be enough for anyone" argument isn't more valid now than it was 20 years ago...
and if you've had a woman, would know it.
You sure picked the wrong audience for that comment...
The point I was trying to make was that you could be handling very valuable information while not actually making a lot of money (hence, not being able to afford the sometimes steep price of a certificate from a well-known CA).
Other examples of the same type (sensitive, valuable information, that actually does not bring you money) are the ones you mentioned: usernames/passwords, health records, etc.
One example that comes to mind: I'm selling small gizmos at 1 dollar a piece. Wouldn't really qualify as "highly financially valuable".
However, the customers visiting my webpage are requested to input their credit card numbers, and some of them have millions of dollars in their accounts :P . Can I afford to use a non-encrypted, non-authenticated connection for that?
8 bits == 2^8 == 256 possible addresses. Take out the broadcast and network addresses (.0 and .255) and you have 254 left. Hell, take out even the gateway address as you suggested (although I really don't see why), and you still have 253. Where do the other 2 go?
What I'm really curious about is where that "251" figure came from...
See above. We already have a confession. :P
Oh yes, I thought I saw some resemblance there! :P
I was wondering when this will pop up :) . It might be 99% for the chimp and 99.8% with the identical twin, or it might be 95% for the chimp and 99% for the twin. Somehow, I have a feeling nobody can give an absolutely accurate figure.
I remember that during medical school (maybe 7 or 8 years ago) we were told that while identical twins have extremely similar DNA to each other, that DNA is not 100% identical. Maybe 98 or 99% (more than any other two individuals on this planet), but not 100%. So while this is an interesting research, it hardly qualifies as "news"...
And this gets modded informative? Funny, yes, but not informative - do modders even look at the links?
While I agree that this could cause the subject to be accidentally injected with the sedative (by contact between the patch and the vaginal walls), I really don't see the connection between cervical opening and sexual arousal. The size and shape of the cervical opening can vary for various causes (such as phases of the menstrual cycle, giving birth, or specific medical procedures). However, I have never heard of it varying through sexual arousal.
Actually, the effect on the X-ray image is due to the implant absorbing the photons, not reflecting them.
...I see a first post modded "Redundant". Is there some kind of tradition around here that I'm not aware of?
And most of the LCD displays of today have millions of transistors on their surface. Fabricating large arrays of transistors used to be expensive, and was one of the most important reasons why the cost of the first displays was prohibitive. Yet all technologies advance, and products tend to get cheaper... much cheaper!
;) ) ]
[ Not to mention that it is probably much easier to make tiny coils than it is to make tiny neon lights (think plasma displays
...would such a commentary get moderated "+5, Informative"!
:P ]
[Or '+5, Interesting', as it seems to have changed while I was writing this
HDCP - High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection, a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to control digital audio and video content
Yes, you can walk perfectly - but have you ever tried running with your hands tied behind your back? When running, the imbalances are far more frequent and more severe - and if you are unable to use your hands to regain your balance, you will quickly find yourself on your nose.
The wireless wire is already here (think 802.11 :P ). Now if we only had cordless power, we might actually experience some mobility... (I cannot talk about "mobility" as long as I'm still tied up with a power cord any time I want to work on my computer for more than 2 or 3 hours)