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

Hi Shyam.

Can you please be more spspecific about the problem you are trying to solve?

Just so you know:

1. All vendors currently support IPv6 with 128 bits what that means it that
they have invested a lot of money to get staff members consultants and
volunteers to get the working code. Getting back to 64bits is like asking
them to do pretty much same amount of investment to solve and unexisting
problem.

2. There is a lot of IPv6 deployment so far, that means time effort and
money as well invested in getting the right thing done, and you want these
guys to revert to 64 bits probably putting same efforts in getting the
right thing done without solid grounds.

3. 100s of standards have been developed and a lot of work done to
stabilise IPv6 and all derived protocols/technologies. Do you want us to do
all this again? No worries, let us know why?

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, 13:17 Mark Smith, <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> We need to go with 128 bits because there are literally billions of nodes
> (smartphones, etc.), billions of dollars of hardware and software, and 10s
> of 1000s of networks (at least - the global IPv6 route table has 70 000+
> routes in it) that currently use 128 bit IPv6 addresses.. We have a massive
> installed base.
>
> If you want to argue against 128 bit addresses, you'll first need to first
> work on a time machine to go back to the middle 1990s when that decision
> was made.
>
> There are much better and bigger problems to solve that will have much
> more useful outcomes when solved than now trying to shrink IPv6 addresses
> back to 64 bits or any other size.
>
> What ever savings you think you're going to make while be pale in
> comparison to the cost of changing all existing IPv6 deployments to a
> different size address.
>
> You're effectively proposing another entirely new Internet Protocol
> deployment, and based on how hard IPv6 has ended up being, yours will be
> even harder.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu., 15 Aug. 2019, 17:34 shyam bandyopadhyay, <shyamb66@gmail.com>
> 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?
>>
>> 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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>