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

Clemens Schrimpe <csch@kiez.net> Fri, 26 July 2019 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <csch@kiez.net>
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 1B97012011F for <105attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kiez.net
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 6-Oyot_fO8Lu for <105attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NKN.Kiez.Net (NKN.Kiez.Net [IPv6:2001:1560:42::61]) (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 1A6DE12013B for <105attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kiez.net; s=alpha; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=dHjXv0azb5QInWqAvZaaHVUJQAWYCps0+SiCY2QT5Gg=; b=U8DWPeK/a6Wgff1PSDRfAbOWEy 00Xfx5KmiyVvwuiL+TFsr4BnznQL01FhEV5DG5DbGnZkzeznSt3KnDC+CSQxPuSXfEutCYb5yIEOm 4PAUFexExGYtc0Vy5tvk6KhT5/LmGA+leUMAzG8syYtv4lXHMiYj2nvyl4YoMva5esNY=;
Received: from sonne.tt.kiez.net ([192.108.92.20]:47816 helo=sonne.Kiez.Net) in DE by NKN.Kiez.Net (NKN.Kiez.Net [192.108.92.61]:25) with esmtp id PV997D-001J2H-1P (Exim 4.90_1) (return-path <csch@kiez.net>); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:18:49 +0200
Received: from [192.168.24.70] (80.132.230.78) by sonne.Kiez.Net (6.7.010) (authenticated as csch@kiez.net) id 5CDAA6810000B17B; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:18:44 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6E1AFC81-E10E-47ED-A513-1FF1EB0A7EE3
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Clemens Schrimpe <csch@kiez.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:18:43 +0200
Cc: 105attendees@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CB0CDC51-E5B2-4F34-8415-4672109DE0D6@kiez.net>
References: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Received-SPF: pass (NKN.Kiez.Net: domain of kiez.net designates 192.108.92.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.108.92.20; envelope-from=csch@kiez.net; helo=sonne.Kiez.Net;
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/105attendees/HdF09FpFMShFceCTUMiKH71lH1M>
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 15:18:55 -0000

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 <shyamb66@gmail.com>om>:
> 
> 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
> 105attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees