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

Hi all,
  Apologies for further spamming this list. Since my queries were specifically referenced I felt obliged to respond. In my view, 105attendees is not the appropriate venue for this technical discussion, and I have hence responded on the 6man WG mailing list with my original technical comments on this proposal from a year ago.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZjODueIaDUnHSbmq9Dmd9-pm5Yg

If you are interested in technical discussions on this topic, feel free to respond on the 6man mailing list.

Thanks
Suresh

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto:shyamb66@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:29 AM
>> To: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>; 105attendees@ietf.org <mailto: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.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:      248-219-2059
> F:      248-968-2824
> E:      rgm@labs.htt-consult.com <mailto:rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
> 
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
> -- 
> 105attendees mailing list
> 105attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees