Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?

[shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>]

Dear Suresh Krishnan,

 I am thankful to you because you are the only one who came up
with all the queries earlier. I am attaching a text version of the mail
that I
had sent which contains answers to your questions (in case
you failed to open the attachment that I had already sent).

By the way, I wanted this topic to be discussed by the entire IETF community
That is  why I had sent it to 105attendees, not in particular to the 6man
list.
Sorry for my ignorance.

Thanks

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:51 PM Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> (Moving this to 6man mailing list instead of the 105attendees list whose
> purpose is very different)
>
> Hi all,
>   Since my emails with queries were referenced, I felt obliged to respond
> to set the record straight. I think it is bad etiquette to post contents of
> personal emails on a public list. But to set the context, I would like to
> post verbatim what *I had sent* in my email responses about a year ago for
> which I received no further responses.
>
> ***** QUOTE *****
> Regarding 128 bit addressing
> =======================
>
> 128 bit addressing is not designed for "this moment". Seeing how long it
> has taken for us to get to significant deployment we want IPv6 to last
> *very long into the future*. Think of it as the price we pay for future
> extensibility and novel uses (see below). Please read RFC1726 (1994) for
> the technical criteria for the selection of the next generation IP protocol
> and RFC1752 (1995) that explains why the current IPv6 protocol was chosen
> amongst the options. If you think 64 bits is superior, please explain why
> and explain how things like
>
> * stateless address auto-configuration (SLAAC) described in RFC4862 would
> work with a 64 bit boundary
> * how privacy can be protected using mechanisms such as RFC4941, RFC7217,
> RFC8064
> * how mobile network tethering would work using mechanisms such as RFC7278
> * how IPv4 transition and co-existence mechanisms such as MAP-E RFC7597,
> MAP-T RFC7599, 4rd RFC7600, 6rd RFC5969
>
> would work.
>
> Regarding further steps needed from the draft author
> ========================================
>
> It is *up to you* to convince the community (not the IESG/us) that your
> argument/idea has merit. There are proposals that come up roughly every few
> years about how IPv6 can be done better but none of them address the basic
> issues of
>
> a) incremental deployability
> b) backward compatibility
> c) incentives for people to deploy
>
> As I said before, if you can summarize using bullet points
>
> * What exactly are the technical ideas from your drafts that are useful
> and novel. Please be precise and use only a sentence or two per idea.
> * How do you see these ideas being implemented and deployed (e.g. do you
> have open source code? who else is interested? Any operators willing to
> deploy)
>
> I think the working groups that are most relevant to discuss these ideas
> would be 6man and intarea and the mailing list for the concluded sunset4
> working group. You will get feedback about your proposal there and see if
> there is community interest in pursuing the idea.
> ***** QUOTE *****
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
> On Jul 26, 2019, at 10:28 AM, shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> To:    The entire IETF community
>
>  Sub: Why do we need to go for 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?
>
> Dear Folks,
>
>  I raised this issue couple of time 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 am thankful to
> Mr. Suresh Krishnan for all the queries that he had. I
> have shown that all the points that he had, can be solved
> with 64 bits address space (Please follow a copy of my last mail
> as an attachment with all the answers). I believe all the points
> that were mentioned in the requirement specification of IPv6 can
> be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I would request
> all the people mainly those who have been working with IPv6 for long
> to come forward 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 address space (at least) 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.
> 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).
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
> <prev_letter.txt.doc>--
> 105attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees
>
>
>