Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> Fri, 26 July 2019 14:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mbishop@evequefou.be>
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 ACB1612004D; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=evequefou.onmicrosoft.com
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 hfLG3gFHii51; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr800108.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.80.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2641200B9; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Gs8tpt2TgvlBtM0/vqBMb6e7n7NBk5oyb1Pj9TMcLwyiQNrCRNvjMaJJoAl0YR7U3PoG42BIRtVUkKjssYHswqwKCa12ZxQ8YjzHBLcWRr3Vufo9IFoeLXBX2azzuOu3CafY774aXTcCqPCAu9kh5ddx1FWhfQBDfBd/XSPxn6inf0qEfbiunvX8nH5jV5F9cgfZQUyvZa2kJ4GDgUgHmI2oKP3F6QUaPVL6RVaSL9KSq2D1CZROQng7+cAHOyM/McwWvJWRAJblgVfix6YSLeS1O8t4paa3xHgQtD6+zadNOPuDOSYQ8yXlGENqYmoInrdbUs7PY/rUb3EzZUHhCQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4eYg8ieP2g6TYacx+3EL3BN1IUjogRcT7kRLx4z226U=; b=PhfFdnI7WdRce5eEHBITquI4Jir8oZfhW+gZ74QujOfMznAz0edBjDsUNx/acQFPXtpsuvY7cV1FNo9bXzfLgWRT3E6YL2FfvdkUZ1pXWVh7lHHOsjhaIJKxGowRLGdKaVc08FPJv7Z4EqAJxqf3MC7yuvqJaWaGK2+Cvtd+JvEnn4ylrY870QV8wp6kG1maQnjo+v+aBP8dHR7BztASf0+dFAEnTWJZcqNbEGy9lWeeJjHSifyjTlrlmFA0CnCtESFnr6XQ6pUg0DwtUv0ENwbA5xp1G+XeDVyT5KQ7EGeFj1I79wighhDXbqUQjA4LZGnAsffkY+ALhK9QDwn1HQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=evequefou.be;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=evequefou.be;dkim=pass header.d=evequefou.be;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=evequefou.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-evequefou-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4eYg8ieP2g6TYacx+3EL3BN1IUjogRcT7kRLx4z226U=; b=IxRbWyFzgApxltUfsESFMggP0ksWV7obnvJgjHoCFIEFM2Zb+bFX1glGXkHi3jE0W4evrRd1sgdqAq1OMLY6817X6VGlOSoRcqJ5AQ1fnOgSij7xHRx4bCI2XIUGdxw8IBp6XXtgSFO49z1pge3VBz+kXB3Uu2iQR5mslOPfeus=
Received: from CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com (10.171.164.151) by CY4PR22MB0151.namprd22.prod.outlook.com (10.169.182.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2094.14; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:42:35 +0000
Received: from CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4190:c9d6:bf3f:2432]) by CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4190:c9d6:bf3f:2432%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2094.013; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:42:35 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "105attendees@ietf.org" <105attendees@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
Thread-Index: AQHVQ76ErkK9bF8fKkqC5ky7XoYIPKbc+T3G
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:42:35 +0000
Message-ID: <69139f83-77b8-4419-8c65-eb8956db4c96@evequefou.be>
References: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mbishop@evequefou.be;
x-originating-ip: [12.246.51.122]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2a1a8563-d67c-449e-258a-08d711d77fcf
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(7021145)(8989299)(4534185)(7022145)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(8990200)(7048125)(7024125)(7027125)(7023125)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR22MB0151;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR22MB0151:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR22MB0151962F1FBE3B3770DE43B9DAC00@CY4PR22MB0151.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 01106E96F6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39830400003)(376002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(53936002)(6116002)(561944003)(236005)(6246003)(446003)(66066001)(54896002)(6306002)(476003)(2201001)(6506007)(102836004)(6436002)(229853002)(3846002)(186003)(6486002)(25786009)(71190400001)(5024004)(256004)(26005)(53546011)(36756003)(2906002)(71200400001)(31696002)(6512007)(508600001)(86362001)(110136005)(99286004)(7066003)(31686004)(8936002)(14454004)(2501003)(316002)(486006)(68736007)(8676002)(66946007)(5660300002)(91956017)(76116006)(2616005)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(11346002)(76176011)(81156014)(7736002)(81166006)(14444005)(606006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR22MB0151; H:CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: evequefou.be does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 2PD8FI2K7yGrNXRz+IdL9hFysrUwLpc/NAcGrSoysjv5b5bAKVqLV2tfWQ/3AVPlvbr8anasEEBSik7M6STKtjUh+NJ5Gu9cU4GzcXc1JkWqiYyX0j7BwGgYWUgZ6YEVx+sfnDHUOxMb5czHLjXAiIoVfMPBEjv7bnjASas7TWAIFdS1NKf4fjOxTA8Sc6I99n3uNkccSBTQkuL0Dxwt0o6/REdXYyWObFwoTrqcixO7C3kAbSRXVkXR3ZtJ3xOx3ZiqtHWgA/CR1OmjTktbwSAtMOufLpJiuoouBnyM4iA9dqFKZ2rp4NFHRM35eUYgW1UqOSjr3ktCPU4LFiTMjLsLbgW4i0cnKfQGuE1wULm+hek0TrKnLdKjVpCVTUURqufl++CS4gwu/jJbBgxcfqsFTEcbApI7XGqgaiflIkQ=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69139f8377b844198c65eb8956db4c96evequefoube_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: evequefou.be
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2a1a8563-d67c-449e-258a-08d711d77fcf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jul 2019 14:42:35.5017 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 41eaf50b-882d-47eb-8c4c-0b5b76a9da8f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mbishop@evequefou.be
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR22MB0151
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/105attendees/IapJb1QuvWlt1VxB5F6OPiURAvU>
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 14:42:49 -0000
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.
- [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