Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 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 69C55120817 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:31:47 -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 N6uyDNOsdyYa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (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 24BD1120046 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id 62so11572356vsl.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:31:45 -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=5oqaAVbKBb6Tdjg9xuQyZ5gSq6QCIIgyJnZx1U+1kuA=; b=ATn1l5pBixRUaUO3nlHyBqaKWsI73cmGQJwaUKmLoVNIcrGLY1CmQVB9zlKhY8U8XZ Vf5vJOmLpHIjoVZZ3aRiLJBgshYyhY3xMIMIamzeDdCp2IgzTTxqRdnjGCKPOcccg40E 7sfS3o2C4w4wCm+3i1/kXo9csVNlBmAAcRIpiFiaQnf7lwZN29ulJDSIP4P9f/7rlTGN bX3kBDA6JVZNsKBX+O0aU0jOWkYLO1ynU+NxLQKOu2zjjgCpDzBWonSpwwWGbngcoRaD IRDGdcBEou7oQoqxHh14ekW22a2OXbTTOj02B0IQwmsLVbXa80zbMkQt/9cKVyM/Cd+x eJ5A==
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=5oqaAVbKBb6Tdjg9xuQyZ5gSq6QCIIgyJnZx1U+1kuA=; b=Nc+ZT7bgdK4G6/j0L6EtA+vgwAbf3Cippx7Hqv2k/T2yGzsIiBQG81abqFe4/SlV7x czUqq6bDas9vFfkbA9MF22sAccKc++A78CG2CCHjsTOJfD0/OLibcX38KzsbTU/nL5+f O1jpBCMqq/rEpO76vyEs/RmwIcPivJlJ5VOC5L7WpMoQlx7KkM1tnb5To5RWgyr2u0sV ipBg//FlQGsdzQn3AMfMnyTGONIkO5OsbhcB5k/5GTOYyWNhs83GcrC2Fs+tv0otEJls zXt99AHD2mBqXpE4ZhhJw7rEL0l7GY2VSayQUNGEAifYPvcGQ3FJXZamEqOtF/Vy8wFB b4pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXG67eDPYJq7Fjx+dJtSwogDVPJz9vHbXlYLUm+qL15kBqrooYj WQgPT8GDZhVZUUUH6wXAuGGw7ZIYTPDr2mF0dlWoFg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMt28m15lgPXnhxNa0LXVTuhD5sfvD15awoHHT/9VyoolVtyUtCKKdTtfBRGq6vIgrjgyHNBcubezfSyvZBQI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:fb45:: with SMTP id e5mr5468234vsr.190.1567524703942; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab0:71d5:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8e4c9f38-4085-bade-c9ed-3598c7c35d59@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>
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:01:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPTMOtKjHLH4SqwbhnJ3vtJsDUnJ-KJdMYKy5LUe-pTRt8F1mQ@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="00000000000027ba440591a7c979"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dT879NU5KEJeuyKw8No9gVwRbIo>
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:31:47 -0000
The intention to establish hierarchy is to reduce the number of entries in the global routing table. Relating a (networking) region to a geographic region is just to satisfy administrative policies. If no such requirements arise, establishment of hierarchy becomes easier at the same time address space can be used in a better fashion. By the way, I am thankful to you just because you took the pain to go through my document. Shyam On Tuesday, September 3, 2019, Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > To justfy cross posting by Shyam Bandyopadhyay to many lists; > > As I wrote: > > shyam bandyopadhyay wrote: >> >> draft-shyam-real-ip-framework >>> >> >> is a reinvention of geography based addressing not acceptable >> by ISPs in the real world. >> > > among many participants of all the lists, I, only on IETF list, > am the only person to pay respect to him by, spending some time, > reading his draft seriously enough to find a known defect. > > Though he may be disappointed, it is better if defects, if any, > are found as early as possible. > > So, he did the right thing. > > Masataka Ohta > > PS > > Attacking someone's draft without reading it is a personal attack. > > PPS > > I found RINA, seemingly, have the same defect. I'll discuss it in > a separate mail. >
- 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