Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?

[Clemens Schrimpe <[e-mail]>]

Could it also be, that this train has left the station decade(s) ago? We aren‘t „going for 128bits address space“, we have 128 bits address space.

🤔

Clemens

PS: I can‘t read your word document. Could you transform it into a (current) open format, please?

Von meinem iPad gesendet

> Am 26.07.2019 um 16:28 schrieb shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>:
> 
> 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.
> <prev_letter.txt.doc>
> -- 
> 105attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees