Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 27 July 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B47120018 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 lw0ZJGnMnJLN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (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 B9B0512000E for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id x22so50681944qtp.12 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=M5AiSGuDsn7qddBHBjOPFSDyl1g9zcGtRH2CD1RNWcM=; b=VIHKsPv01qFDTKsX9JgIuyXq2c8VgJFplnHKHG11DBNZrQz8MM+uWFw1OX0zGw0xk6 fAi9pKg90UVXQxEHFhdwQtVFpY43Rty5B7QvlTeGbFSJsXRZYyrt2Uf8ynwlwegHO0kq RtqWfQyMWd4STlkk5GQKNsvIllVVRrMTwu4pvzalj2egevb7THZB2AasY6QrVU3JSFow HVOg79ljPVj+5BjGU6pwpAo6Ozpg1fjEnOCkfLgtDbJzbJpi+l0iymwU3kCFeREvDj+v wCQc/WWSfR8c5GH6m8ieNJ5aLesorb6xdXMooyTDAkotw9Fygf3UxxIpjVcb6E0WFyDA B9zw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=M5AiSGuDsn7qddBHBjOPFSDyl1g9zcGtRH2CD1RNWcM=; b=r0M3fyPzEv/3nfYt57fcm9i3bsAZEGmqy4jZDPzwdRIca6q1pBkiZ48eXVl9MIMqbJ /20XZilXPmu8Zt8L9rL5u3bMJg/GwWhBMINhy+YPwZok2ZHHfNyzIP4OHFJiN3Tl4LIP CemsP6UqMsE3u1GCiblMk2HTOpZ1/BSSwh1qrleGzl/L9yTp+aUUJjnq0eG2Z56/0JQx rA/JPjUdYP/4QJedRvGCsZqgp5lEY+rZbFSWIaXgX2wDefaIlELim9R0RAnM5XMePDG6 ruxUbiFeEYmocLcNuSl3NNdrLLzMlESZWF+lf2HMQKP2dbPsAXk2BXUN75pSA8ZKNjS6 6BpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwPFuL7bL5CP5eSKEmJs/Z2qQLCa134AVcn3hkL5a2NgLeqJhC HhBabNozieKqUYmbxedNE65MgA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrNqGV+XRMGpjknhlwb1jWbACNl6FcSfDR5Fv2hjTmMV1iPyhJH49DPmD4hlHuRCHMnuTwow==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:92ca:: with SMTP id c10mr73013328qvc.108.1564241872870; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.16] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9sm23527805qki.81.2019.07.27.08.37.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <9001E793-E513-4671-9665-EAC0FA535E6F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_586BCA7F-5D53-45F0-9DD3-A7FEB726BED0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 11:37:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOt+BRCGZR9XQmZXTrN9j3-YA-voyUsOEXRv=TDR4ozGMiw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, 6man@ietf.org
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
References: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com> <46BD2180-BCC7-4D38-BF43-F913251357F5@kaloom.com> <CAPTMOt+BRCGZR9XQmZXTrN9j3-YA-voyUsOEXRv=TDR4ozGMiw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4xPPTvQH-qrDIzKTWYA-Ktg1SQA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:37:56 -0000

On Jul 27, 2019, at 10:38 AM, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, I wanted this topic to be discussed by the entire IETF community

If you have an idea that you think merits the attention of the entire IETF community, your first step has to be to get some people in the IETF community to agree with you; if you can do that, then they will help you to socialize the idea.   Until you have done that, your message to the IETF as a whole will simply be seen as spam and ignored.  This is true regardless of how meritorious your idea may be—we simply don’t have time to all evaluate every proposal.

In order to successfully pitch your idea, you need to understand what the current state of the internet is; otherwise you will propose things that seem really good on paper, but don’t actually make sense in the real world.   Based on what I’ve heard of your proposal, it is clear that you do not understand the current state of the Internet.   I would encourage you to devote your efforts to gaining that understanding, rather than to floating ideas that you come up with in the absence of such an understanding.