Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 21 August 2019 02:51 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 A0423120116 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 LLKgopU9Nb-0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 14CB1120837 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 45576 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2019 02:39:13 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 21 Aug 2019 02:39:13 -0000
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:51:18 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOtLyiUpi4L+7TpLePvm=JtpEnw-Yv1NCKvO63_HK2jFnCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VgHVJMdBJaedK9oOLts-U4ilQ9A>
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, 21 Aug 2019 02:51:25 -0000
shyam bandyopadhyay wrote: > draft-shyam-real-ip-framework is a reinvention of geography based addressing not acceptable by ISPs in the real world. > 2. Separation between Locators and Identifiers. Even though it > was not documented in the requirement specification of IPv6, growth of > routing table have become a real problem. One of the source of this > growth is the way site multihoming has been supported in the existing > system. Designers spent hell lot of time to come up with solutions like > ILNP/LISP (with the concept of PI addresses) LISP is not a solution but yet another garbage. Attempt to convert ID to locator at the end (using ID as locator) means loss of reachability to the end results in lack of conversion, which is not multihoming. Additional "optimization" to convert ID to locator also in the network is against the E2E principle needing conversion information, amount of which is at least proportional to the number of multihomed sites, in the network, which is no better than having global routing table entries, number of which is proportional to the number of multihomed sites. To make multihoming scale, think end to end, which means both ends must be involved to make multihoming scale, which is what draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-* proposes. Masataka Ohta
- 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