4 ms·
Given that this is the same number as the number of IPv4 address which exist, I have thought of it in those terms, many time. One address per human wouldn't be
by samatman 2y ago
Given that this is the same number as the number of IPv4 address which exist, I have thought of it in those terms, many time.
One address per human wouldn't be enough, mind you, but we have about half that to work with.
- chipdart 2y ago> One address per human wouldn't be enough (...) What leads you to believe that? I alone use more than one device at a time, and my household alone has over twice the number of devices permanently online than residents. If you happen to have more than one SIM card in a mobile phone and enable mobile internet, it also adds up. Then we have all the non-human-facing computers chatting over the internet. Don't you agree that even today there are far more devices connected to the internet than there are people?
- wjholden 2y agoThe OP is comparing the estimated number of humans on this planet (≈8.2 billion) to the known number of globally-routable, public IPv4 unicast addresses (<2^32≈3.2 billion). Network Address Translation (NAT) enables the sharing of public IPv4 addresses, to your point that there are likely more Internet-connected devices in this world than people.
- lkirkwood 2y agoI think they probably do agree, GP says one per person wouldn't be enough.