IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Thu, 15 August 2019 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
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 76D8412011A; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:18 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 vinn4qq7ubfh; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C664A120119; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4598716270B; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 8u4mlnVVYi-s; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7A516270C; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S6NshaCxzY8h; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wifi-131-179-51-163.host.ucla.edu (wifi-131-179-51-163.host.ucla.edu [131.179.51.163]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B41A216270B; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <BC873EB3-0DAD-4416-A345-6EA8E570F0E8@cs.ucla.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_82514374-DDCC-49C4-8AA1-3EDBBCAF14B3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:09:01 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CANMZLAat4X+Eh+fgTrbikO6dusvcvvUr5foj=3OEnbRhQtOHSw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <cd254463-43ba-2afd-5c3c-f462a74e5c30@kit.edu> <CANMZLAat4X+Eh+fgTrbikO6dusvcvvUr5foj=3OEnbRhQtOHSw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cfnB3UEnKGL36HUSlcvXuryJZ-M>
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 15:09:22 -0000

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 3:30 AM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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

Strongly second point (g) on the topic being too late to discuss; there are way more important topics to spend limited IRTF cycles on.

Lixia

PS: I served on the IETF IPng Directorate that many years back (and being Deering's next door neighbor in office): there were many factors that influenced the final decision; no simple measure for "right" or "wrong". For people interested in history, a dinner conversation at some future IETF meetings could be more informative.

> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, 21:27 Roland Bless, <roland.bless@kit.edu <mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> a) the address space was designed of a lifetime of 50-100 years.
> 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?
> > 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email