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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 26/07/2019 à 18:51, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
> (Moving this to 6man mailing list instead of the 105attendees list whose 
> purpose is very different)
> 
> Hi all,
>    Since my emails with queries were referenced, I felt obliged to 
> respond to set the record straight. I think it is bad etiquette to post 
> contents of personal emails on a public list. But to set the context, I 
> would like to post verbatim what *I had sent* in my email responses 
> about a year ago for which I received no further responses.
> 
> ***** QUOTE *****
> Regarding 128 bit addressing
> =======================
> 
> 128 bit addressing is not designed for "this moment". Seeing how long it 
> has taken for us to get to significant deployment we want IPv6 to last 
> *very long into the future*. Think of it as the price we pay for future 
> extensibility and novel uses (see below). Please read RFC1726 (1994) for 
> the technical criteria for the selection of the next generation IP 
> protocol and RFC1752 (1995) that explains why the current IPv6 protocol 
> was chosen amongst the options. If you think 64 bits is superior, please 
> explain why and explain how things like
> [...]
> * how mobile network tethering would work using mechanisms such as RFC7278

With due respect, this is not a good example.  RFC7278 is not a good 
thing.  It came to life because of a glitch in IPv6 specs.  The glitch 
is the one that mandates 64bit boundary.  RFC7278 does not allow to go 
beyond a /64 mobile subnet (it does not scale).

Alex

> * how IPv4 transition and co-existence mechanisms such as MAP-E RFC7597, 
> MAP-T RFC7599, 4rd RFC7600, 6rd RFC5969
> 
> would work.
> 
> Regarding further steps needed from the draft author
> ========================================
> 
> It is *up to you* to convince the community (not the IESG/us) that your 
> argument/idea has merit. There are proposals that come up roughly every 
> few years about how IPv6 can be done better but none of them address the 
> basic issues of
> 
> a) incremental deployability
> b) backward compatibility
> c) incentives for people to deploy
> 
> As I said before, if you can summarize using bullet points
> 
> * What exactly are the technical ideas from your drafts that are useful 
> and novel. Please be precise and use only a sentence or two per idea.
> * How do you see these ideas being implemented and deployed (e.g. do you 
> have open source code? who else is interested? Any operators willing to 
> deploy)
> 
> I think the working groups that are most relevant to discuss these ideas 
> would be 6man and intarea and the mailing list for the concluded sunset4 
> working group. You will get feedback about your proposal there and see 
> if there is community interest in pursuing the idea.
> ***** QUOTE *****
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 10:28 AM, shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> To: The entire IETF community
>>
>>  Sub: Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space if
>>          whatever is been trying to achieve with the existing
>>          approach of IPv6, can be achieved by 64 bits address space?
>>
>> Dear Folks,
>>
>>  I raised this issue couple of time earlier. My intention
>> was to collect all the points in support of 128 bits address
>> space and try to figure out whether they can be solved
>> with 64 bits address space as well. I am thankful to
>> Mr. Suresh Krishnan for all the queries that he had. I
>> have shown that all the points that he had, can be solved
>> with 64 bits address space (Please follow a copy of my last mail
>> as an attachment with all the answers). I believe all the points
>> that were mentioned in the requirement specification of IPv6 can
>> be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I would request
>> all the people mainly those who have been working with IPv6 for long
>> to come forward in favor of 128 bits address space that can not
>> be achieved with 64 bits address space.
>>
>>  If it can be shown that 64 bits address space is good enough to
>> solve all the requirements, either we have to move back to 64 bits
>> address space in the future or we have to carry through this extra
>> burden for ever for no reason.
>>
>>  I would request readers to go through draft-shyam-real-ip-framework
>> as a reference. It shows that if address space gets assigned to
>> customer networks based on their actual need (in contrast to
>> 64 bits address space (at least) for any customer network in IPv6), 64 
>> bits
>> address space is good enough for this world. Along with that, it comes up
>> with the following:
>>
>> 1. It shows how to make a transition from (NAT based) private IP
>>    space to (NAT free) real IP space.
>> 2. It comes up with a light weight routing protocol applicable inside
>>    VLSM tree that satisfies all the features supported by BGP.
>> 3. It come up with a simple protocol for Host Identification with Provider
>>    Independent Address with the approach of DNS. This can be considered
>>    as an alternative of existing protocol (HIP).
>> 4. It comes up with a hierarchical distribution of network for the
>>    convenience of routing and distribution that may be considered
>>    as useful in the long run.
>>
>> Hence, I would request all the like minded people to come forward
>> and look into this matter seriously.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> <prev_letter.txt.doc>--
>> 105attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>