Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 07:33 UTC
Return-Path: <shyamb66@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 36B2C12003E; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 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] 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 DGZt1p4QvCaM; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) (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 1BC5C120052; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com with SMTP id q16so1005240vsm.2; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JVNbw/ICbwCjiDlASQvuKD8DnlGrK1J5AautVpGMSl4=; b=XTCWIcEG8v9xmiEoVqFkQekKfy6jqEGyAIF7xT6kGVt87W0w8xuHcT0fvmSLawrJJ1 zb/NsEqhPUEH9fegdG4qmGzmh7/zyCR5XXSRA4HHFoJQb/wZRQi8qu+6D5O0OQ/aqmFZ ife2ljc9NieLs9H2x7pS3p/SRC8ovrx2A2exFk6pM9b/lw7okCMd7Te0ixoD7V+VOA6E rWWXnsHHeFp8r5EFrYKR8pBbqRt4cDCwT/byskvwYLMlkFG9TjGF+tN9JLiEoTZH2hNU sACbjJRy0Z5EzUpYSADAgxAbR0OyfHsUk5uY4OF+N1bpXXW/UInRlG7RpEkx6quE9+Xf 2lQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JVNbw/ICbwCjiDlASQvuKD8DnlGrK1J5AautVpGMSl4=; b=X5fJLJOO2173al7aejJo0NqBGvRqu2JlCyoDWg4OQUWLRtHQSugEbGXt0auSlgmzsB 5yXoP7zOLjHoOi+Pd3aBX34oYFaQQoDWkBTzsgPSpl/ibINJTEA5Wtv9v1ChjyPfRlPq QKFBdP/S/zXGvGmvzRQQHqmS/UrI65hFqhfJ2oMy23Wr4JPyQuS1cnKmBDuBlUWcgGpo FJJ/wyt0jk8eWOR78amlIiY3RjxnK/e/yEW1mKhqJ04MMtG6nGf4V5wf2REQAVBqegnD Uw/fueNosoIyBlK7cRHcGNv8IPOSqYELNCGuKpxQy5p6rHvVgyLdc+5KA1PYsfSxhmYE Ss1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXIgMdCCOVA2UuHdFFB2eKhu9sF9nBQdbXmnuFNhpyvDnV6ArQ1 HeXsIf1ZaAqRw5U3GSo2Pu06vdV14ImkPAgXqvn1P8BKc1A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxACTIKkPNah71EftQVL1WuTuJtKSKSiM7R85UILpW/AeJH48X2iwEXb7qu5CJNZxfv10hDIJXhAskYgIWgPzc=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e414:: with SMTP id d20mr946629vsf.190.1565854405767; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:03:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000a05a81059022e385"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kFKaOun2Z37-PThBKZGCkq0WIv8>
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 07:33:29 -0000
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
- 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