republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

reply to matrix3D

Re: Citizen identification

said by matrix3D:

However, I took the math somebody did on Wikipedia and reposted it here:

"The very large IPv6 address space supports a total of 2128 (about 3.4×10^38) addresses—or approximately 5×10^28 (roughly 295) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5×109) people alive in 2006.[10] In a different perspective, this is 252 addresses for every observable star in the known universe."

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
But we already gave half the address space away to MAC addresses. Why don't we give away an address to each possible process on each computer in the world? Why not reserve an address for each possible thread of each possible process of each possible microprocessor for each possible person for each possible location (GPS coords) on earth? why not turn IPv6 addresses into a global cloud computing supercomputer, all RAM bits in the world will be addressable through a unique IP address!

matrix3D

join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT

I'm assuming your post is meant to be sarcastic... but if it's not, why would a process or a thread even NEED an IP address? Only individual nodes or devices need an IP address.


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

said by matrix3D:

I'm assuming your post is meant to be sarcastic... but if it's not, why would a process or a thread even NEED an IP address? Only individual nodes or devices need an IP address.
We can eliminate port numbers by giving each process an IP address. With the future (jk) cloud computing/internet appliance/X Windows style dumb terminals, all programs will be RPC enabled, and have unique IPs. Handles and objects transparently work over the internet. GUIDs are history, we have IP ranges instead of GUIDs.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14

said by patcat88:

said by matrix3D:

I'm assuming your post is meant to be sarcastic... but if it's not, why would a process or a thread even NEED an IP address? Only individual nodes or devices need an IP address.
We can eliminate port numbers by giving each process an IP address. With the future (jk) cloud computing/internet appliance/X Windows style dumb terminals, all programs will be RPC enabled, and have unique IPs. Handles and objects transparently work over the internet. GUIDs are history, we have IP ranges instead of GUIDs.
Please explain your logic here on a technical level, and verbosely at that. I'll save my flames for *after* you're given the chance to explain how this would work on a technical level.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

2 edits

said by koitsu:

Please explain your logic here on a technical level, and verbosely at that. I'll save my flames for *after* you're given the chance to explain how this would work on a technical level.
We replace TCP and UDP and use a protocol without port numbers. Lets allocate 32 bits of the 128bit IP for all possible RPC/IPC objects an application might use (4 billion). Then we allocate 24 bits of the 128 bit IP address to label each protocol/application, 65000 (16 bits) wasn't enough with IPv4. The 32 RPC/IPC object bits and the 24 application bits combined remove the need for a loopback range. Let allocate 16 bits of the IP address for all the devices one person might own (65000). Now we are down to 56 bits left. In the next couple decades we are going to have atleast 40 billion people on earth since population growths exponentially. Lets allocate 44 bits of our remaining 56 to individual humans (a device might wind up with multiple IPs, one for each of its owners), that gives us the ability to give an IP range/address to 17592 billion humans, we might go intergalactic and spread all over the universe, IPv6 needs to follow us. The remaining 12 bits we give away to actual ISPs, thats gives us 4096 ISPs in the world. We just exhausted the IPv6 address space, time to hastily upgrade to IPv7.

Also there must be some external mechanism to replace broadcast addresses and multicast. Maybe we can allocate one of the 4096 ISPs to be a multicast range.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14

said by patcat88:

said by koitsu:

Please explain your logic here on a technical level, and verbosely at that. I'll save my flames for *after* you're given the chance to explain how this would work on a technical level.
We replace TCP and UDP and use a protocol without port numbers. Lets allocate 32 bits of the 128bit IP for all possible RPC/IPC objects an application might use (4 billion). Then we allocate 24 bits of the 128 bit IP address to label each protocol/application, 65000 (16 bits) wasn't enough with IPv4. The 32 RPC/IPC object bits and the 24 application bits combined remove the need for a loopback range. Let allocate 16 bits of the IP address for all the devices one person might own (65000). Now we are down to 56 bits left. In the next couple decades we are going to have atleast 40 billion people on earth since population growths exponentially. Lets allocate 44 bits of our remaining 56 to individual humans (a device might wind up with multiple IPs, one for each of its owners), that gives us the ability to give an IP range/address to 17592 billion humans, we might go intergalactic and spread all over the universe, IPv6 needs to follow us. The remaining 12 bits we give away to actual ISPs, thats gives us 4096 ISPs in the world. We just exhausted the IPv6 address space, time to hastily upgrade to IPv7.

Also there must be some external mechanism to replace broadcast addresses and multicast. Maybe we can allocate one of the 4096 ISPs to be a multicast range.
I'm sold! Where do I send my investment money?
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


TomS_
Git-r-done
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
Ireland
kudos:1

reply to patcat88

said by patcat88:

But we already gave half the address space away to MAC addresses.
No we didnt. 64 bits is not half of the IPv6 address space. It may be half of the number of bits, but with each bit you add you have to double the amount of combinations. To give away half of the address space you need to work on a 127 bit boundary.

i.e. 127 bits with the 128th (left hand most bit) being 0, and 127 bits with the 128th bit being 1. Those are the two halves of the address apce.

64 bits gives you 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 billion billion) possible combinations.

128 bits gives you 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (340 billion billion billion billion) possible combinations.

The number of times that the former goes into the latter is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616.

So we have given away 1/18,446,744,073,709,551,616 of all possible IPv6 address space.

But it is not to "MAC addresses" as such...

paul248

join:2001-09-04

reply to patcat88
Your idea is interesting, but why would we use IP addresses to identify individual RPC objects? I think there's some utility in giving each process its own IP address, and 64 bits per subnet is more than enough to permit that.

But, once you've reached a process, you can multiplex at the application layer to call a specific function. Using IP addresses for that sort of high-level thing is just silly.


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 edit

reply to TomS_

said by TomS_:

i.e. 127 bits with the 128th (left hand most bit) being 0, and 127 bits with the 128th bit being 1. Those are the two halves of the address apce.
Your right. I should have said half the bits of capacity.

But with each residential subscriber we waste 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,600 IP addresses or 4,294,967,296 IPv4s worth of addresses

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

reply to paul248

said by paul248:

But, once you've reached a process, you can multiplex at the application layer to call a specific function. Using IP addresses for that sort of high-level thing is just silly.
But using IP addresses for delivering objects creates a premier paradigm shift of empowering a harmonization of open global unity and synergy solutions.</sarcasm>

I was half joking about allocating IPv6 adressing bits, its supposed to make sense and be reasonable, but I hope my joking proposal never happens, but some people on IETF are high horsed enough to be dead serious about giving every electrical and non electrical item and virtual item an ip address/GUID/tracking number for a Revelations barcode on your forehead future.

Saturday, 02-Jun 15:33:24 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics