IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Kerner <skerner@chromium.org> Thu, 15 August 2019 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <skerner@google.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 6483512006D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 bF79Z2wYgwAX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 04:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 4303D1200A4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 04:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id i128so1280642vsc.7 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 04:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=285rATmQY8Z4WWgqcOYKklRYQbCuwsgPLT77XZ3jG0Q=; b=KvhHF87c8uGR1G4UJGDWvx6ll+87GsjOa/0FAB+3VvU8gsEbYvqZ5TE7UC0NiIpoEE 6saPtEb34b8vbdBJ+WU8/ITmxjJTK20EqiHTbMascWtdGYBxkRnvEq23cgs67zKO7sAg ugcfjbLGwdhl5OmBQqWtWQ7cnjBDBecAvMT8E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=285rATmQY8Z4WWgqcOYKklRYQbCuwsgPLT77XZ3jG0Q=; b=ghVe1cGcgyXd3Bc/RC83GvET1ITOyfDfr7wkKP4LKJDdQIB45oaSLXbf5YhGGtCjZA v5jASlC7c0eKYV0nBmrWIyK6SzpxH0S7MwyiPVqglfoYcbKtxvHh4ghNy0vW9E+WDLzz AjN+oiqJHY9ZxZwQ8khYoc94EY2zLh52iOrMvQEBF0Rf3YINMBJYy+WWRd4C2RVxFNog OR3JZ/fjlCu4vGNOLBbTjl+2qPgcu1PeRNHKaKj6aO2UkP/kWGazFzIzdRP6GE3jTQEJ HHpdycL8LlUepmDKsZlf8HY8FCUgFUInu91OikBgCDezca5upKFuOyZafVprsyWlAtov Ithg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoub8GrgPH3/c7axaXV35QHHYc8q4vnhmdP3cDZ4jjpgZt2IS4 /U2XQEc9MUT2yJRUn3OfpKsTYRhRYtU2fXVjSZnwNg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9pb5T7cxNwD0rRC199S4GwzNVc7SULtG+YULS/1q7f3hr+vblUoyw+jCZTfJAwTvmN8yPzz0FELMFVstfUmU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f50a:: with SMTP id u10mr846298vsn.216.1565868454719; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 04:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sam Kerner <skerner@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:26:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMK=nQuvmZt4zwy87C9nvf31Ns+t=CGHhnFBy2cgRNdKQH5S9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SbLEONMuWNtHzNxKTmLc3NKimWw>
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:27:38 -0000

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:33 AM shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  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.
>

Even if 64 bit addresses are good enough, why does it follow that we
want to transition to them?  What is the burden you are concerned
with?

There is a significant cost to changing all the networking hardware
and software that already uses IPv6 addresses.  What benefit do we get
from 64 bit addresses that justifies this cost?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email