Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 09:16 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 AFF2C12007A; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGFgtSTt9sFP; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (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 EA1C6120077; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l12so1143674oil.1; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q+ns6bpM/NpjWvcSH2q04JWW3TgkOfE4pjOw2kt0T98=; b=l5ZMQMyO7yvOsfA9vX1qWZhBsNo1dvpknk1DBsTaOJQFd1kJBA9Nc3GjsfI2FIfC1p lnEyvlteL5ZAFReIStte/t7dZyZB/I00yAyR7aBfPCjdzb2VODYSux0+4Fg9dRH7jvp8 zqy9K63tROeRieWx49mCuE/3zCaVnm0CRCG0z3RSGqManRJy3IfqEz7DW67WF/Uu4+XO jC3TCNksIiJSFVpmJYhe5OfZVUQmwUqPXiOTfcU3B91rw7pn9fnOX1O0KQHURPHL9OTA TZaHKX8H9t36KUTSjplmMd4GDWH37tlMYJfCS0g56GNHlqYBYFHT4KNtKiVSFKJx0Rpn i5pA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q+ns6bpM/NpjWvcSH2q04JWW3TgkOfE4pjOw2kt0T98=; b=iCUzQDAvoj/BbnjJHqdNvv89Z+s4gfeP/yoJ7OBffBLoUtj4jh/EceSwE0eDuRfhdC GlPWQvep2aruq0+6R7+14mpWsyI1w9dcFMVa65MxebZj9sQOW5oQIJqdPi3IcRzx+ZUI 16aJTMPZtyJx8bpuKCjPlPF8W/fBCSWNmFZhEhrzbGr8dKbEs4ORW/XT3HeG0ohBnovi SX4KMHd+/UMMyPc78xQJv/x//GqokHiRrmbqr6oFpLzld27AOWulfRZq68Ph2UweL04w r+DMURPntEg6/t+BlHPLtvM4QbbHcrSoOj06sb+KrvaXIQhX1mD1S5qg5mNMzOJJDI7U uHqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8vycAaoiHvZOP89BR9xiNsh4Mp0ZWdCkp+HIB6fIytbxLUB6M dL4smapCYA8moiYIl0LwTRHulErsrTF8/piaUrI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3oMwqGsXWTeEB0DLX5cW2YX3uJCAyFdZnT1K/DuLq7RS0lmKXyajzq+Q/wJorWSeJ9x/6SU/WJ0QDaFbih+E=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:6701:: with SMTP id z1mr815345oix.164.1565860595167; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 19:16:23 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2waTpUvCtM+Qk_ke2p6nUCTBZ6kiL=0GExBTCxFrkucvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008af8900590245453"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EhPTeBDTLd8DY26bSvSowf_XUXU>
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:16:38 -0000
We need to go with 128 bits because there are literally billions of nodes (smartphones, etc.), billions of dollars of hardware and software, and 10s of 1000s of networks (at least - the global IPv6 route table has 70 000+ routes in it) that currently use 128 bit IPv6 addresses. We have a massive installed base. If you want to argue against 128 bit addresses, you'll first need to first work on a time machine to go back to the middle 1990s when that decision was made. There are much better and bigger problems to solve that will have much more useful outcomes when solved than now trying to shrink IPv6 addresses back to 64 bits or any other size. What ever savings you think you're going to make while be pale in comparison to the cost of changing all existing IPv6 deployments to a different size address. You're effectively proposing another entirely new Internet Protocol deployment, and based on how hard IPv6 has ended up being, yours will be even harder. On Thu., 15 Aug. 2019, 17:34 shyam bandyopadhyay, <shyamb66@gmail.com> wrote: > To: > The Entire IETF community > > Sub: Why do we need to go with 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 as well? > > Dear Folks, > > I raised this issue couple of times 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 believe > that > all the points that were mentioned in the requirement specification of > IPv6, can > be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I have received comments > and queries from few people (including Suresh Krishnan, Robert Moskowitz, > Fred Baker, > Ted Lemon, Ole Troan, Jordi Palet, Mark Smith and Gyan Mishra) so far. I > am thankful to > all of them for all their inputs. I have tried to answer all the queries > that they > had (Please follow the attached file). I would request more and more > people to come forward > and deliver their inputs 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 prefixes 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. (It is > applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the > addressing architecture). > 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). (It is > applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the > addressing architecture). > 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. > > Last time I had sent this mail to the 105attendees list. Robert Moskowoitz > suggested to move it to the IETF mailing list. Fred Baker suggested to > send this > as a proposal to the IRTF list. Hence, I am sending this mail once again. > > Thanks and regards, > Shyam > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ? shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Brian Carpenter
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Sam Kerner
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Lixia Zhang
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Allman
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Keith Moore
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… tom petch
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Scott O. Bradner
- Does routing table size still matter (Re: Why do … Nico Williams
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Nico Williams
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Tom Herbert
- RE: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Does routing table size still matter (Re: Why… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Musa Stephen Honlue
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Keith Moore
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Keith Moore
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Keith Moore
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Michael
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- What's the Internet's biggest flaw? (was Re: [irt… Keith Moore
- Re: What's the Internet's biggest flaw? (was Re: … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: What's the Internet's biggest flaw? (was Re: … Nico Williams
- Re: What's the Internet's biggest flaw? (was Re: … Masataka Ohta
- RE: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… John Levine
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fernando Gont
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Keith Moore
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … John Wroclawski
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Shyamaprasad Bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Scott Weeks
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Warren Kumari
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fernando Gont
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… John Levine
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu