Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 15:31 UTC
Return-Path: <shyamb66@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 C4435120951 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 io6YU1fLi3Ep for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe33.google.com (mail-vs1-xe33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (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 7BA71120942 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe33.google.com with SMTP id l2so1718784vsr.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:31:36 -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=VuHdeGLWGFKH8/iU8+Usjg1AJdkIVtuxjd9pJsuzlpA=; b=uxSrIG8Z9k1+S0C7OiCHidHd+BgKaWgW1Nc1uhCXc0GaQwtevTNgMHLrdBCEsu0RWU WEeSeEvJS440oM7In7GLiFFCj/QMWvyxLhTPpuQsy02f60QQtXCsej8yECVl2kzs76// WDPnkUy8mL7R4WGUR6ysBH7ROxA6OGry4BGZAE+Tgq5I+HQUeYPg7r6ysTq83W34mT5U 1trtWhN3IhgR0cmD9+/Ks3AUhzyHSLiUP1FBhd3Qy1eIjaa04uHNrVbaeobjB6mzsjPZ XVGCfpDTYnJg9mpmcGlbY1l+HiFJNb0f6ZqDHB4r0I3B2rbgf4Kvy0g3q+58jdoXjTav NQDA==
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=VuHdeGLWGFKH8/iU8+Usjg1AJdkIVtuxjd9pJsuzlpA=; b=Pyil8HS7L/JemUnVVcmlDRUMX+p8N4S1Sz6mOrgHxAYdnZeOTBBDQB0YqRH10juYjf N93FF7hP6bdZU+hVqu/jfUrnOUEWiXDaHjOaToYJLNzX7hJc/0ew+4Rk8uqLHa3x7VxY JpAioMVopf5ZL4PZHZvBnxk/7KbIEY9F/E8ChpAbqRpB47GqPNU8rE4gWOnl+hams9S2 +A5HDpKMjZZbIVTBmYgOgtGNV9rgxCy8url91Aznwrkb2eaSLdfVphfwp2xsy790b1tA e1u8M3lv48ToqAduopXrIPchepz2G07grgnB9fFaF4xqb9NggzsKssz6D3US1tNFnxhr oC+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU7J8GDJ3+E7+7P6vXxnuMgzxkcK8vgwn09nCcO+4M+sUZAikt+ Nau1uN9dMB+9uxF/eMQyTQh9hVvDJADmEHCM1bs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKda8ERvHt5L6weX9zkNthxvbmdI1Dw6PtuZfK+yZ2sBC8kS5GJeJ3l6Vt0UBIgVxjIpzogphYjlkbEZ8OxiU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:680a:: with SMTP id d10mr1558822vsc.190.1572017495267; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <10708d7b-a4bc-f9d8-a644-7c5617f5ebf3@gont.com.ar> <CAPTMOtLyiUpi4L+7TpLePvm=JtpEnw-Yv1NCKvO63_HK2jFnCA@mail.gmail.com> <e2d92d77-d43b-ce0d-d145-6a5f20a3d97a@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <e2d92d77-d43b-ce0d-d145-6a5f20a3d97a@gont.com.ar>
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 21:01:22 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPTMOt+N6d+0Ucsf_9iNSDmZ8i741eLMtNnYvy-WW_dKLW2xZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, lixia@cs.ucla.edu, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com, jwbensley+juniper-nsp@gmail.com, skerner@chromium.org, wdfcrtssdywz@gmail.com, roland.bless@kit.edu, phill@hallambaker.com, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>, mstjohns@comcast.net, chengli13@huawei.com, honlue@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062dcaf0595bdd81f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V-CiXFAKDYzn3R1mJxdX5scYDos>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:55:44 -0700
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:31:39 -0000
Fernando Gont had said: >No. RFC7217 simply says that the algorithm works with any IID lengths. >But it doesn't cahnge the requirement of /64 for SLAAC. Well, my only intention was to show that assignment of 64 bits IP addresses per subnet is wasteful. Initial consideration was to associate hardware address to generate IP address, where as later, RFC8064, RFC7217 etc. has shown that it need not be. How costly it is going to be to use stateful autoconfiguration with DHCP based on the size/need of the customer network? James Bensley had said: >If you think that a 64bit address space is enough, you're very >mistaken. People are already thinking up ways in which we can better >address "things" now that we have a larger address space to work with. >We shift the paradigm from one address per devices to hundred or >thousands per device, we shift the paradigm from assigning IPs to >individual devices or virtual devices to assigning IPs to content/data >so that we can route to the nearest instance of a piece of data not >the nearest machine, which may or may not have that data we need. Once >you shift the IP assignment paradigm IP usage explodes. Everything you >talk about with a 64bit address space is possible with a 128bit >address space, which is already deployed, so why go backwards and >impose a limit on our existing deployments when we're already looking >at IP assignment methods that will increase IP allocations but one or >several orders of magnitude? Since I received your statements, I was trying to figure out what is being going on with IoT. Well, there are tons of documents and a number of them are still in the abstract form. So, it will take a while for me to get a hands on this. Whatever I am trying to write here is based on my common sense on networking and with very little knowledge on IoT. I guess, it will be inappropriate to assign global unicast addresses to each and every virtual devices of an IoT. There are some practical consequences. First of all, an user of a device has to remember IP addresses of all of the virtual devices. Also, as each of them gets exposed to the external world, it makes them more vulnerable. To avoid this, one has to go through authentication mechanism by assigning password etc. to all the virtual devices. This complexity can be reduced by identifying the section of IoT that can be localized and allowing proprietary communication between devices by setting private IP addresses in each of them; which is contradictory to the current trend of research where proprietary communication is being asked to be replaced by global communication system. I strongly believe that global communication system should be used only in those cases where proprietary communication does not meet the purpose. There are social consequences as well. My computer gets hacked regularly. Whatever I try to do by sending email, WhatsApp etc., becomes public. There are secret agencies who are engaged in doing this kind of activities. However strong the security mechanism it may be, they come out some sorts of ways by knowing all the things. I could not educate myself to be protected against all these kind of activities. The more we make people addicted in using devices that gets attached to the global communication system, the more we make their life vulnerable. It is not like that the secret agencies run behind everybody, but once they make someone as a target, his/her life becomes a hell. By the way, how many IP addresses do we need per person? how many IP addresses a person will feel comfortable in using (at home and work together) on day to day basis? draft-shyam-real-ip-framework has shown that 64 bits address space can support thousands of IP addresses per person at densely populated place like Japan by using mesh structured hierarchy considering misuse/unallocated address space at each level of hierarchy. Mesh structured hierarchy is intended to reduce the routing overhead and to make the distribution simple. It does not try to optimize address space. Where as, if the existing CIDR based hierarchy gets continued, address space can be used in a much better fashion, i.e. one can easily expect lot more IP addresses per person. If 5G technology becomes successful to replace wired communication to the corporates (based on the reports available on the net which is not expected to happen very soon), assignment of address space based on the size/need of the customer networks, will become a simple job. i.e. transitioning from private IP to real IP will become very easy. On top of everything, wastage of address space will become the least. i.e. we can achieve most optimal use of address space. In this kind of scenario, 64 bits address space can easily support hundred thousand IP addresses per person. With the above statement, one should not think that I am trying to promote 5G to replace wired communication to the corporates. I guess there are lots of aspects to be looked at before making it happen. So, let me make my statement more clear, "If it so happen that 5G technology becomes successful to replace wired communication to the corporates, usage of address space will become most optimal". Mr. Sam Kerner had said: >Even if 64 bit addresses are good enough, why does it follow that we >want to transition to them? What is the burden you are concerned >with? > >There is a significant cost to changing all the networking hardware >and software that already uses IPv6 addresses. What benefit do we get >from 64 bit addresses that justifies this cost? Well, certain advantages are very obvious: 1. 128 bits address space is way too long. It is less painful to use 64 bit addresses in place of 128 bit addresses for our day to day use. Once the concept of NAT gets eliminated, IP will be the backbone through which all the services (i.e. voice/video/data) are going to be provided. i.e. we are going to use IP addresses more frequently. 2. 64 bit address fits inside an integer, all the calculations becomes simple and faster. 3. Bandwidth usage will be improvised as the header size will get reduced by 16 bytes. This is going to have significant impact on real time applications where sizes of IP packets are very small. I guess we need to make changes in the software (e.g. RFC 4213 talks about transitioning mechanism for IPv6 hosts and routers). Could you please specify what are all the places we need to make changes in the hardware? I do not mind using 128 bit addresses if it is needed. If 64 bits address space is good enough to satisfy our need, is it not burdensome to carry forward with 128 bits address space? Regards On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:08 PM Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote: > On 20/8/19 10:57, shyam bandyopadhyay wrote: > > I thought of keeping quite as on the very first > > day I received suggestion from senior members to not to continue > > with this topic any more. But, I need to answer all the queries > > that I received so far as I am the one who have initiated this topic. > > > > I guess (as it has not been documented any where) there > > were few issues based on which designers moved from 64 bits > > address space in SIPP (RFC 1710) to 128 bits address space in IPv6 > > which appeared to be major issues during those days: > > > > 1. To support SLAAC, by embedding 64 bits hardware address > > with the IP address. Recent studies shows (including RFC 8064, > > RFC 7217 and RFC 4941) that we need not embed hardware address > > with the IP address. RFC 7217 has stated size of IID need not > > be restricted to 64 bits. > > No. RFC7217 simply says that the algorithm works with any IID lengths. > But it doesn't cahnge the requirement of /64 for SLAAC. > > > -- > Fernando Gont > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > >
- 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