Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Fri, 16 August 2019 14:25 UTC
Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 81D251201DE; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wYgtq4ATc6av; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (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 C7D7E120219; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id h8so2006987ybq.9; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=LwwFGkwW2RWl9XdO5LxwhCsuyq3n4gBeXx03t6hgxx8=; b=KAYUPU0SpC2frcS6Qs/ayEn/w0rjWv+6D52Hd8GDS36z9j+9/UzOvkx2naSuvoEUSN nbNp2KxfkWQYxmu4ac9s7EK6rU/IAadho+Aw9OIBi2E2BI34hC2jroZR8bmd+3jVpZ0X llW8PnNYopEmtdZn5yxHv/7WcZCTZA4PA3O5kVHggRhrjXDtEGxaNPc7H0aGGARfS6yp dd+LUfThaexwGq8perVy33hF1Ef5Af56YdR7KUTyNN4biQbmpM5gEWtGsclhkK2pzBu5 OaQ2CMtianyXtvyb62K55v/04QhI+g9QhtUwudPlp3xRlJjarvPx64W0rcDOPSQlQKNd Ap3A==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LwwFGkwW2RWl9XdO5LxwhCsuyq3n4gBeXx03t6hgxx8=; b=Jc/8IMQgjzh0fhsOpGxz+iPtbXhE8DdBz3Km4+aFifdACf3FxrtUNAWTwxi5oDczcU X+sdhQ3k0PkvgBQEdFxr3QL3FTl6spsbnC55Mxx9MPxrnKppmJAFPQ1K0+VPz3M5XzU7 cCnlGQWefuuT8I7PpAejnmk6WZnxcIryGEwGM/y/tGPAsNUvmNyacG1ps/lHPP21Sojq ALD6l5XoA/kBBT8GrwjByvEgZHARaX5i9DIDB3Yu+ivQfu8ydoV2y4057P3ZkjtrZNZ4 r5/cQNeT/y8H+OzkAi8+2MbsP8sIICQYw0/yfJHcoZLnL0sa0nC7uuoSsbPbrpxk6Sog uEaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRzDxok4DLu6tbFH9K6TbTXd+R0XA6yH97vSiUpgQ2dgI2fErj B/wO0H/fbnrPtGznT59zLiITd+znfA0fi+ivQcQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynEhFLmf4vg/10Tpz4MC+FDZKNc5oL/q1vhkmlXyMK3JjzJeIHZHZjneDmZ18cwyRGMJzS3sh3gJS0UxK8K+g=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7054:: with SMTP id l81mr7626193ybc.91.1565965507994; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <A73D3F51-0C60-437A-AE8A-DF464F2042D4@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <A73D3F51-0C60-437A-AE8A-DF464F2042D4@tzi.org>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:24:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfAL2PEeLUcKoiH6x_1LUE6883cW=ppWKfnz50j-hS5XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5a75605903cc122"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cRMm5zgYFnaYY84HNGQU5vm7F6I>
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: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 14:25:12 -0000
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:00 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > > > 64 bits > > How quaint. Everybody knows the right answer is 53. > > (1) 53 dec is 35 hex. Wins right away. > > (2) 53 bits is all that can be expressed by a JavaScript integer > [RFC7493], and routers are sure migrating from ASICs to JavaScript. > > (3) the 32-bit Internet is not going away soon. We all know a good > compromise between 32 and 64 is 48. Let’s add in 10 % for good measure, > making it 52.8, and round up to the next bit, making it 53. > > Grüße, Carsten > > (Not sure that invoking ATM entirely works like Godwin’s law, but here’s > my attempt to kill a useless thread.) > > +1 It is useless thread. It persists because of hot summers we are having. Behcet
- Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ? shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Brian Carpenter
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Sam Kerner
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Lixia Zhang
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Allman
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Nico Williams
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Tom Herbert
- RE: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Musa Stephen Honlue
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Michael
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… John Levine
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fernando Gont
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Simon Hobson
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Sander Steffann
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … John Wroclawski
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta