Is there perfect vacuum 10000 billion lightyears away? Is there perfect vacuum about some 10,000 billion light years away?
With perfect vacuum, I mean that there are no particles, not even virtual photons!
I had this idea by assuming that all particle filled space was created by the big bang and the max speed of light combined with the age of the universe.
Although probably impossible to measure, I wonder what the consensus is (if any) and what the theory says about it (if there is a theory about perfect vacuum at all)?
By the way, I'm aware of the Cosmological constant problem, but that's not what I require as an answer.
I haven't heard much about vacuum during education is that normal?
 A: The big bang in relativity is not what you are imagining--- it isn't a localized explosion. You don't have stuff rushing out from a point, you have everything getting denser in the past in a homogenous way.
This is complicated a little by the fact that a Newtonian big bang has things rushing out from a single point. But even in a Newtonian bang everything is homogenous, all points look the same as all other points after a translation and a Galilean boost. The particles have a speed which is proportional to their distance, and this goes all the way to infinite speed in the Newtonian version.
But we don't live in a Newtonian universe, and when you have a relativistic big bang, the way it works is that all points are the same as all other points after a translation and a relativistic boost. At the point where the boost boosts you at the speed of light, so at the limit of the sphere you are imagining, you have a cosmological horizon. So it isn't that there is "perfect vacuum" beyond this sphere, there is a visibility boundary which marks the end of the universe as we can ever see it, and for a positivist (i.e. for a physicist) this makes it the boundary of the universe, period.
The sphere you are imagining is then not a boundary between stuff and vaccum, but it is the boundary of the entire universe, and there is nothing, not even vacuum, outside this sphere.
This is complicated a little by the fact that you can extend the solutions of General Relativity past horizons, so that you can imagine that there is extra space beyond the horizon, at least classically. In the extended model, the universe goes on beyond the horizon, and in a big-bang model, in a homogenous way, so that if you call "time" local time since the big bang, all places look the same at the same time. In an inflation model, you can have most of the external volume still inflating, so that the banging is at different "time" at different places, and in most places, counted by extended volume, the bang never happens. This point of view is called eternal inflation.
All these extended scenarios are just-so stories, since they either make no predictions for the observable universe (since by definition, we can't see the stuff outside the horizon), or they make statistical predictions based on saying that we live in a typical volume of the extended universe, and these statistical predictions are ridiculously wrong (they predict that inflation lasts as long as possible conditioned on us being here to observe what we observe, and this is false). These points of view attribute more information to the external universe than what can be encoded on the cosmological horizon, they are not compatible with causal patch complementarity and the holographic principle, and they should be considered dead.
The other answers to this question misinterpret your question. You are asking about a point explosion not having time to fill all of space, and this is just not how the big-bang works. The best way to talk about the relativistic big bang is to say that it happens everywhere, not at a point. The only caveat is that the Newtonian big-bang isn't like that, but ignore that for day-to-day intuition.
A: You say:

With perfect vacuum I mean that there are no particles, not even virtual photons

but the quantum mechanical vacuum is a complicated place. For example see the Wikipedia article on the QCD vacuum. If you count virtual particles then there is nowhere in the universe that is a perfect vacuum in sense that there are no virtual particles present.
Re your question:

I havent heard much about vacuum during education is that normal?

Yes that's normal. You wouldn't usually cover this stuff until post graduate level.
A: It seems like your idea of "perfect vacuum" is something like "nothingness", which you definitely cannot find anywhere in our universe.
Firstly, if we travel 10000 light years away, we would still be well within the Milky Way galaxy.  Interstellar space, while mostly empty, still contains a good amount of hydrogen and other debris.
Even if we travel a million light years away, to intergalactic space, we would still encounter one or two protons per cubic meter.
Edited to reflect your updated question: If we travel 10000 billion light years away, we would be in a different Hubble volume (beyond our cosmological horizon). However, based on our current assumptions, we can expect space to look similarly to what it looks like in our observable area of the universe (with the same particle density).
And finally, even if we find a region of space devoid of all matter, it would still be permeated by electromagnetic and gravitational fields, whose virtual particles are inescapable.
A: A quick go at this from another angle:
As a look at wikipedia can tell you, the observable universe (that is, the parts of the universe near enough to us to have had time to communicate some signal to us since the Big Bang) is about 45.7 billion light years away. This is about 200 times smaller than the distance you propose (10,000 billion light years).
Now, there isn't really a physical boundary at the edge of the observable (to us) universe, and for most current theories to hold up there needs to be quite a bit more of "universe" past that distance, probably by some orders of magnitude (10$^{23}$ in some theories). 
That aside, it is important to keep in mind that there is very little one can say about places outside of the observable universe, and even less that can be verified with any sort of direct or indirect evidence. This is particularly important when piling zeros on top of numbers to make them look more impressive, since then one runs the danger of referring to absurdly unphysical quantities. It is just as easy to say "a billion years!" as to say "a hundred trillion!", but while the first is about a tenth of the age of the universe, the second would hold ten thousand ages-of-the-universe, and is therefore not a timescale that physics can meaningfully talk about.
A: In the classical expansion from the Big Bang outside the expanding universe there is "vacuum", in the sense of nothing there outside the universe. So if your numbers are to mean a size of the universe not yet reached, a mathematical coordinate system, I think the answer classically is perfect vacuum.
I am not sure how this "vacuum" will be treated in string theory. I would expect that it would be the same, nothing, not even virtual pair creation until the expansion is large enough to reach your 10000billion light years. On the other hand this is at the frontier of research and will probably not be settled for a long time.
