Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> Fri, 26 July 2019 15:01 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: 105attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 105attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C79D120041; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XUHMNCH5utH8; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72E7120019; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC95160945; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3KrG1CtqUq1H; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx140e.htt-consult.com (dhcp-914c.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.145.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3459A6080C; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "105attendees@ietf.org" <105attendees@ietf.org>
References: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com> <69139f83-77b8-4419-8c65-eb8956db4c96@evequefou.be>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <37c3a341-6f11-df8d-babf-5ed3cd988b83@labs.htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:01:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <69139f83-77b8-4419-8c65-eb8956db4c96@evequefou.be>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------547EA634B0E7F8337F414959"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/105attendees/1xZh32sO1g5fNX39j_FBgoEZNsA>
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
X-BeenThere: 105attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of all 105 attendees for official communication <105attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/105attendees>, <mailto:105attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/105attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:105attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:105attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees>, <mailto:105attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:01:30 -0000
Take it to the general IETF list... On 7/26/19 10:42 AM, Mike Bishop wrote: > The attendees list is not an appropriate venue for a technical > proposal. Perhaps you should present at HotRFC next time. > > Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 10:29 AM > *To:* iesg@ietf.org; 105attendees@ietf.org > *Subject:* [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space? > > To: The entire IETF community > > Sub: Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space if > whatever is been trying to achieve with the existing > approach of IPv6, can be achieved by 64 bits address space? > > Dear Folks, > > I raised this issue couple of time earlier. My intention > was to collect all the points in support of 128 bits address > space and try to figure out whether they can be solved > with 64 bits address space as well. I am thankful to > Mr. Suresh Krishnan for all the queries that he had. I > have shown that all the points that he had, can be solved > with 64 bits address space (Please follow a copy of my last mail > as an attachment with all the answers). I believe all the points > that were mentioned in the requirement specification of IPv6 can > be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I would request > all the people mainly those who have been working with IPv6 for long > to come forward in favor of 128 bits address space that can not > be achieved with 64 bits address space. > > If it can be shown that 64 bits address space is good enough to > solve all the requirements, either we have to move back to 64 bits > address space in the future or we have to carry through this extra > burden for ever for no reason. > > I would request readers to go through draft-shyam-real-ip-framework > as a reference. It shows that if address space gets assigned to > customer networks based on their actual need (in contrast to > 64 bits address space (at least) for any customer network in IPv6), 64 > bits > address space is good enough for this world. Along with that, it comes up > with the following: > > 1. It shows how to make a transition from (NAT based) private IP > space to (NAT free) real IP space. > 2. It comes up with a light weight routing protocol applicable inside > VLSM tree that satisfies all the features supported by BGP. > 3. It come up with a simple protocol for Host Identification with Provider > Independent Address with the approach of DNS. This can be considered > as an alternative of existing protocol (HIP). > 4. It comes up with a hierarchical distribution of network for the > convenience of routing and distribution that may be considered > as useful in the long run. > > Hence, I would request all the like minded people to come forward > and look into this matter seriously. > > Thanks. > -- Standard Robert Moskowitz Owner HTT Consulting C:248-219-2059 F:248-968-2824 E:rgm@labs.htt-consult.com There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
- [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits … shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 b… Mike Bishop
- Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 b… Clemens Schrimpe
- Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 b… Suresh Krishnan