[105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
shyam bandyopadhyay <email@example.com> Fri, 26 July 2019 14:28 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F8C1200B5; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsgoP0WyYbp9; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa35.google.com (mail-vk1-xa35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59366120072; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa35.google.com with SMTP id b200so10780941vkf.10; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=00nC3JAFhWYwRZR4Hzky7gGQOxHNAQtAupMqTUPtNdk=; b=flcGynQWe2lw+8qqs9Rb0pAgv0FfIxxS6Y13Y7PHruAmJpUBTiOFcW6lafkZxdWQ03 MYjK1fnQ+JTuNJv0fpjDWjx5aO+DaIr4UkN/CJoGn8Q3r7rtVnoxTzh5I52qCRX9/Z/8 +GeBYySDSzb5qFZ/wOIkr4Lc2V9vNcnQh6n/B0Z5Dkp859JfhNRFHHd4NbhUgF54jQco 6RcpQ4lVRECmGTifeoo0M8FGBDh3vl8hS8+cE7fMG8R46Cr2AzqePR+BCsG+gjC6hA5j cezctfmKJSJcrjXzW9wwN628NHJAsn315M3sN4jeW2imEmDQozKcv6eNFP1F/GfHP6js jrBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=00nC3JAFhWYwRZR4Hzky7gGQOxHNAQtAupMqTUPtNdk=; b=BUv9zGRD+b0QoFK12F7Sw53401hlQBTSeieoHYAr7dF5MLSYFeWLa6AuOyeTyAD1Zm yaPKRiYUT4irZwXhYH5uNVhF1kPJH6/8DuiKxS3A4tga/eDX5W/aTFDK9FvQKTPi+PPv Wb/ppHWCORGaY80VpJFRNKgPO9PA36E9gaKoKf4H4P5+36SqlfLt6zkFlSFgHbZ9OsMw 8A4FAZJH6SgMW3vFb7xIpVj0h9wVNqad51PS5MuGXdlARWkA2OwHGyiNfNdharfjA8Rx 2z/5BXOOWU4W57e7wHoNKTvjU0qDhjbZnk/o6BaHOaCf/+JM3BtwEVjiKemaqSPk1XJj x/ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBSqTVZWbZhejukP8zFQUCzoEB+WKuR0Ome7uK8cXRv5QJv3iJ t0jiE3aLOJbQsKFm8u5esCXe6SerMFvQHEEjzmmyngC/
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:be51:: with SMTP id o78mr37392670vkf.66.1564151325075; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:58:33 +0530
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000001b5add058e965c68"
Subject: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
List-Id: Mailing list of all 105 attendees for official communication <105attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/105attendees>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:28:53 -0000
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