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

"Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com> Tue, 20 August 2019 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <pengshuping@huawei.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 F10721200FF; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 A4WFKfhGMIGt; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E437C120024; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6EC7C55FF826723B3DB8; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:46:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:45:59 +0100
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:46:00 +0100
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:45:59 +0100
Received: from DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.113]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:45:21 +0800
From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
CC: "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Thread-Topic: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Thread-Index: AQHVUzv6W9XyTuUK3kytqZHqDmvYsqcDUSpQ
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.169.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4DGGEML532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/a043u6j82erRwdOwTfW-K_ddtds>
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:46:05 -0000

I just wonder, over two decades ago when the discussions happened, whether the question that was asked most was " 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 32bits (IPv4) address space as well?"



But as we can see that the consensus (though maybe rough) was finally achieved back then when the hardware and software capabilities were still very limited. People say “wise people made history”. I always believe so.



Just a bit curious about, why NOW when today’s technologies (HW/SW processing capabilities as well as the ever-increasing bandwidth) are more advanced compared with those at 25 years ago, suddenly people become very concern with the overhead and start questioning about the “extra burden” caused by the packet address/header length…

Shuping


From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of shyam bandyopadhyay
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 3:33 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: irtf-discuss@irtf.org; 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

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?

Dear Folks,

 I raised this issue couple of times 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 believe that
all the points that were mentioned in the requirement specification of IPv6, can
be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I have received comments
and queries from few people (including Suresh Krishnan, Robert Moskowitz, Fred Baker,
Ted Lemon, Ole Troan, Jordi Palet, Mark Smith and Gyan Mishra) so far. I am thankful to
all of them for all their inputs. I have tried to answer all the queries that they
had (Please follow the attached file). I would request more and more people to come forward
and deliver their inputs 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 prefixes 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. (It is
   applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the
   addressing architecture).
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). (It is
   applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the
   addressing architecture).
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.

Last time I had sent this mail to the 105attendees list. Robert Moskowoitz
suggested to move it to the IETF mailing list. Fred Baker suggested to send this
as a proposal to the IRTF list. Hence, I am sending this mail once again.

Thanks and regards,
Shyam