IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 20 August 2019 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 F2EBF120955 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 vC-HDi5ObkgL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 1C6C2120232 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857BD4B; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:48:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1566319689; bh=u0WWvdzJTXdgHoRu7dX ReIUIiLfHyyt5JEkhWwSjb9s=; b=XEUwxMTIN4egE7IPXDV1q/cupvh8CEeA20T ZGBNuY+BQmCBhWYtKcMgumVms/nc10MbnF+eoGh45iuD+bPDTI2MZbtLgwHYPdSz a9EcqwvN7kboARAbJq8Pde2+mB6gN/p0To4WthmNDLVwFQdWIyMDGpx2evMaV40e PJXEyIII=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 2V1JmPFRJFMP; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:48:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:b913:882d:8a7:72fe] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:b913:882d:8a7:72fe]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 471873C; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:48:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <C8329126-8E6E-49C2-BB2C-1ACDD0AB3E69@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AB732DFB-F917-443A-BA4F-6E8E3A41C065"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:48:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <253cd824-3e4e-1812-b6c7-9441014ea78f@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <20190820043742.1EB8C888446@ary.qy> <253cd824-3e4e-1812-b6c7-9441014ea78f@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/i-_ERQMdCZ-DN0lzTrnhCdWmdxI>
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 16:48:16 -0000

Hi,

> I shut up, but it's not that way.  There are CIDR boundaries and every network is not a 64.

Yeah, some people insist on making life harder for themselves…

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email