IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 11:46 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 92AF11200F6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:46:43 -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 7VbCok40Yhbw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) (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 2D7031200F4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com with SMTP id r1so10745729vsq.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 04:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XVPHfXgqtmjF1XE3F+OrALFJNfqqA4WOZFzw6SldIV4=; b=hZOvyQzCubQvxdgfMUK3IFPibjRXyfqY2T4ZeY3H3xWl1likrQBfAXS4Do4wdKX2ni cGd5pd15kOK6rO47UjntcftR51ulYEnwIarLkQeBH/RjWUAkWvWF2DwyPDUu7hnDye4m itStuo1rRT1U0roFbIyxoIwFx8hkl6CipBrN1ZYnEW4WhdNjLGiRdUeGCgojvbQKHbEZ 4x4KPKUl9+Iuasuph1hR9ByXtKR1H12oU6oI5yKB7c0Z3nI5qSbmp9zNvIkVV/7TOQZm PDMEZxMQFO6chMOO+WhLjJQHcAGyh/VnRocWIG1dcFHyQs0N/8gnA/Eyj8av/bFW+ojs Zeww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XVPHfXgqtmjF1XE3F+OrALFJNfqqA4WOZFzw6SldIV4=; b=CKYaRGrDJoaChjKCX1SxeZKFYrbH3DA7zaYO9tgGsHTRHeAwk8dnFGQ7fIS4Bm2d5Z ERBeKfi526gEGfcaAnqXvezfusgu2aMbFHCWlrhuPYXF+Mxzr0qURM+c7o13WRsJeHJc EOffNrnpjy8/gRBd5qodx1poV+qdWEnz1S5GNGERHxnIjMLA8xmPBK9j3LbyPkh20gsA xZPzthUBBbEgPDvBgoOFQLyf1dRueoP4Vqt8Q39M9bHg29J8scZOAuRp/wtn3z+50K12 R8CmE7NzvR55VT/x7tC4DvqmKk0tx5BcUlBk4zUIY/fAHjV+YU8kAfSw2cR5S572TtL1 461A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmUfONlrLi+4DqxyMi55M7BHL7mQw6ZAVznn8AaaUdcC3Rr1jm xEZCe3P8kbeICO0hR3u6t5a3HpFaIq6kTR6lWDXefMAG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8VyVUjUKrqV+2bKzV/n5KXz7eBNs+UCBKWRJmYJwSdHzfjnmcRUxaE7r8nglQK44ui75/AQiWLNMMcH2OhAM=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea41:: with SMTP id r1mr15362174vso.11.1567597601125; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab0:71d5:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3d17944c-9335-6653-bf82-9435b547b663@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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> <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <8e4c9f38-4085-bade-c9ed-3598c7c35d59@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAPTMOtKjHLH4SqwbhnJ3vtJsDUnJ-KJdMYKy5LUe-pTRt8F1mQ@mail.gmail.com> <3d17944c-9335-6653-bf82-9435b547b663@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:16:40 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPTMOt+sF6YRYGVhENwE78tS0s-0KLFCjf6k6svOi1ieqePFCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a7d1c0591b8c26f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V82km9sem6OKYt5vZq9cdxIaDb0>
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, 04 Sep 2019 11:46:44 -0000

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, Masataka Ohta  <
mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> shyam bandyopadhyay wrote:
>
> Welcome back.
>
> True, and rfc2374, though obsoleted, shows a very good
> way to do so.
>
> Though the rfc limit the number of global routing table
> entries 8k, which many people says too restrictive,
> we must make the number below reasonably small constant,
> anyway.


BGP report (https://bgp.potaroo.net) shows
number of entries in the routing table
has crossed 800000 mark.

Solution for site multihoming will give some relief,
then it will start growing again. I guess something
has to be done to restrict this growth.

Thanks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email