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

Suresh Krishnan <> Fri, 26 July 2019 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A62120047; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DAflXxdd8Fu5; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E66AC120041; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a15so53277258qtn.7; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=l8cWc3KAuSht0QWKo+CvFmrTC5KX0yQqVUrHzG4qHhk=; b=izPcBRzTEeNj8ji4w1Gnf/OvhTXHp5mTFX4/hHb7ef7XWrb15kLsAL9lj66qcOQCqk VvE2/YQDSnhCbg7qcT7547bVhPk9LNV2pzEXfaS/CF0rIT7iD5sYfmp+Pb30I+W82qzv Wxln/X+KCJiwIHjI6BNFA10zJ6k0HczLbMfwywlt0poToUY5wgZyq3YX5r0aFl5gY2BC AARmnj8MH3J8tW+MUbkCZ/44kY8/+WPFd+JEB5b8yFsylriFKuouJgZZ8kmZWsulbulK UhqciZ6VIYAgGQTF99TDMp60d9vX8n5MPvAqmPLoTN7qroWSQRKZjWnPBEE0P5kyO2VP oUcA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=l8cWc3KAuSht0QWKo+CvFmrTC5KX0yQqVUrHzG4qHhk=; b=X+k0tfXYn1cKXmxJHEPhtSsVAupjssTtWvMN3EhdZHfhjKh1nw15H/KLMlp7UGfFrp YILBsYrtDYhmmoCFHwOY1DQ/IS8FV555NnnntYv0Xn6UdL0CU0lBpjxAuc/tdUkUHYpl RQHEht9IplATH/lK8FI9W4Y+lLS8SRwJ8R614TB5oRJ09VXFPX0C9NYXI10DB+GHEYG8 THp/1j9aOMvCrPTAoV1cV8Qp/xgIqdUO8KcRSbHyfKcOFXYLpZw+uuZXZQt6MJcDem3v xYGMivQW39gHLpkeBQUenZbpkxGcRvM0GjV0zd8Ep8uWan+PvapqhdUO3tV2xpbKl+Px APQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXsDhH+aoWih1Ag7DXFMwx3j2ENqwa9mIOzsuWWLEnBlBAZPjQM RBWJItF3fiSMn4c61Zen/VtLX7ZppfJHdg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwSRv1zIjJNYp+tuflF6Ri01C8M4Kbnmn87o+vgnW9SGqHlu+AeFjUXt159ELiK2ewbZHocog==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8b49:: with SMTP id d9mr67678970qvc.178.1564161209730; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:b541:cfbb:8051:bce8? ([2001:67c:1232:144:b541:cfbb:8051:bce8]) by with ESMTPSA id t26sm27874885qtc.95.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE8AD6EF-66A3-441E-BF72-3B87FD37A096"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Mike Bishop <>, shyam bandyopadhyay <>, "" <>, Robert Moskowitz <>
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of all 105 attendees for official communication <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:13:35 -0000

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.

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


> On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Robert Moskowitz <> 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 <>
>> From: shyam bandyopadhyay <> <>
>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:29 AM
>> To: <>; <>
>> 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: <>
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
> -- 
> 105attendees mailing list