Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 15.08.19 at 12:30 Brian Carpenter wrote:
> e) 64 isn't enough to allow lots of bits for topology plus lots of bits
> for privacy
> f) in any case we can compress the headers in low power, low bandwidth
> scenarios
> g) it's 25 years too late for this discussion even if we were wrong

+1

h) it's IMHO not an IRTF question and the IETF has real problems to solve.

So Shyam, please stop this discussion, it's really a waste of time.

> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, 21:27 Roland Bless, <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     a) the address space was designed of a lifetime of 50-100 years.

sorry, typo: s/of/for, i.e., the address space was designed for a
lifetime of 50-100 years (at least).

>     b) we see how hard it is to change the core protocol
>     c) given the increasing number of virtual machines and IoT devices 64
>     bit isn't sufficient, see also the discussion of new MAC address lengths
>     d) there is no problem that needs to be solved here.
> 
>     Regards
>      Roland
> 
>     On 15.08.19 at 09:33 shyam bandyopadhyay wrote:
>     > To:
>     > The Entire IETF community
>     >
>     >     Sub: Why do we need to go with 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 as well?
>     >
>