RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Wed, 03 November 2021 08:31 UTC
Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A5A3A11BA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 01:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JaGnsnkBW4KU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 01:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4599A3A11C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 01:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HkfzB3Bxxz67bcp; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:27:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:31:14 +0100
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 11:31:13 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.015; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 11:31:13 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Thread-Topic: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Thread-Index: AQHX0CVovVGa7jvYXUCxunxuZ8u5Aqvxc5hQ
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 08:31:13 +0000
Message-ID: <23b450fb11eb4a51bb4ee837b5c52657@huawei.com>
References: <8F4B97EA-665F-4A59-B99D-791B4AB9F2F7@yahoo.co.uk> <746C1453-FFB0-46E5-ABF2-8630DC23B959@network-heretics.com> <c3e9fe1b-8e48-a364-9e25-4084dac70889@meetinghouse.net> <3a6bf8ad-5492-0942-a451-6317e8a93705@network-heretics.com> <3e685576-a230-a7c4-f371-d66a55aa820d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7a087707-499f-e3bf-8701-1a58930a8a22@meetinghouse.net> <4ec32d7a-a17b-635b-91bc-4152313d6800@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <885e62bf-7d6a-4501-a48a-e7c2cbf20382@joelhalpern.com> <e59adb61-a55c-7f5f-a60a-40bf186c139d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceMSrfkqGTYcMNr3JargO3gxJqTaEyf02LGHd-KVeUDHw@mail.gmail.com> <6286da3e-2beb-9556-089a-2e1951573b1e@gmail.com> <59c80b60-438f-b10f-ad61-ba839f6e4f95@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <e834916e85ea47ef94fce07c23928d2b@huawei.com> <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.192.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2rTmFkdGC1aNwiPYENHq64FpT0Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 08:31:24 -0000
Then why Address Resolution Protocol was needed in principle? (ND or whatever) If the L3 address always had an L2 address inside? The OSI was calling for layers isolation. It was a big deal for OSI. It is not the isolation when addresses from different layers are inserted into each other. Brian explained how it did happen: this mistake was copied from another protocol. IMHO: it is not a good excuse. The consequences are forever with us: 1. Filters from all vendors are 4x affected between IPv6 and IPv4. 2x was because of this decision. 2. Table sizes are 2x affected. And maybe affected 4x in the future if the IPv6 address would be expanded from 64 to 128. 3. SPRING is looking at how to "Compress SIDs". Such a label stack stresses PFE scalability 2x for not a good reason. Wasting 2x more bits for addresses is not "free lunch". We could waste more energy and squeeze more gates into the ASIC to overcome the scalability problem created. IPv6 is anti-green technology as a result. If it is needed to process more bits - it is the cost for nature. By the way, IPv6 is close to "64-bit addressing technology" now. In reality, it is a little bigger because bits are not wasted for IDs on the subnet. All these calculations of addresses per every atom on the Earth are wrong. Real address space is 2^64 smaller. The current practice to "waste as much IPv6 as possible for every design" would fire back in a few decades. Or a big revamp would be needed to expand from 64 to 128 bits. CIDR again. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 11:08 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context] On 03-Nov-21 05:45, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: > +1. > It was a big mistake to break OSI model and include L2 address (MAC) inside L3 address (IPv6). I think you are not familiar with the CLNP NSAPA GOSIP addressing model. As RFC1526 clearly explains, the CLNP address architecture proposed for the Internet embodied an ID field that could be an IEEE MAC address (see section 3.1 in particular). That's how DECnet/OSI worked, too. (And Novell Netware, copied from Xerox PUP, a.k.a. XNS.) We didn't break the OSI model, we copied it. > Half of the address bits were wasted. No, we *doubled* the address size to accomodate the ID field. Most people at the time expected a 64 bit address. I believe that it was the 20 byte GOSIP address that made the 16 byte IPv6 address thinkable. Brian > Many people are coming and coming asking that they would like too to get some bits of IPv6 address for some new protocol.> Eduard
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lloyd W
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… STARK, BARBARA H
- Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Sander Steffann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Miles Fidelman
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stephen Farrell
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context David Farmer
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Andrew Campling
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Jay Daley
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Stephen Farrell
- RE: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Joel M. Halpern
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF contex… Carsten Bormann
- Relitigating history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Scott Bradner
- Re: It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF co… Lloyd W
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- interface ID (was Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Masataka Ohta
- Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Eliot Lear
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ancient history (was Accurate … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Greg Shepherd
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Why IPv6 failed [Re: Accurate history [Re: "profe… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Geoff Huston
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Erik Kline
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… ned+ietf