IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> Sat, 27 July 2019 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanjour@comcast.net>
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 AF92712007A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 4e-ARDMZbuGg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:38]) (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 AE855120052 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.102]) by resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id rUFchV31v3MGrrUKkhJ5Ve; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 21:34:30 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1564263270; bh=jOLZwu4UByAxkNorQ+U4akAq1hCalUc/VR73Y/R3fpc=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=4WxyeUaw/yGsVb9l6/psc7LOg5DsWiefI3xSV4jxHnVEvUSc+rbZEub/XgpWNxc4/ whXPJiOUoVQ1/+Lf+vA+yFmyLV6CfPUwSVgOcZdYB9jblm8fDYtlNUbpKeyflq3Sxq U94c2Z9KVyEWksXewVV/SyIPil8s3/7w/j8fG1V5eRAwcNqZQAfOToYCcIgjcCdgAx abdzAT3TJ90cZwwjv2L0cfE0ypTBbVRlH5rylxcNVZSYm9xhW+BqAluyzFlfRLgHz/ 8e/nEn2RwZsJC0vz2YCjtLfHMscEtBAy8dB1sjOndRZYeO7CtF1FXKJTFSG8mt3AVQ s5cVY7ymB1SyQ==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:189:4300:cee9:f987:1092:268:7493] ([IPv6:2601:189:4300:cee9:f987:1092:268:7493]) by resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id rUKfhET1jj6gwrUKjhmw1A; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 21:34:30 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0;st=legit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Why do we need to go for 128 bits address space?
From: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <563D8720-F79C-4A41-9DED-C50BAADC5A4B@thehobsons.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 17:34:25 -0400
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A5CCAFA-6650-42E7-975C-E1D250C12E48@comcast.net>
References: <CAPTMOtLOHDPvA3Tfky79idNS7CMZctsUCB4M8hB0urSU9u2JQQ@mail.gmail.com> <46BD2180-BCC7-4D38-BF43-F913251357F5@kaloom.com> <CAPTMOt+BRCGZR9XQmZXTrN9j3-YA-voyUsOEXRv=TDR4ozGMiw@mail.gmail.com> <563D8720-F79C-4A41-9DED-C50BAADC5A4B@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kruPX_BI4T0HEQroPVvAj-v9zHs>
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 21:34:34 -0000

All of this talk of backward compatibility is pretty rich, considering the strong backward compatibility between IPv4 and IPv6.


John

> On Jul 27, 2019, at 17:26, Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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).
> 
> All you have come up with in that text is "most of that can be done in 64 bits" - but you haven't stated any case for WHY only 64 bits would be significantly better. There are few (and getting fewer) systems/situations where the extra bits needed for storage and transmission are going to be a significant issue - and many systems where it could be an issue (deep space probes ?) tend to use custom protocols anyway. What's more, the case for the change would have to be very VERY compelling given that we've now had a couple of decades of design, development, and implementations of IPv6 protocols using 128 bit addresses.
> To change it now would be VERY problematic - a 64bit version would be incompatible with what's already been implemented by hundred or thousands of vendors across thousands or even millions of networks. So there would be all the problems that are being discussed & solved in migrating from IPv4 to IPv6 without a "global big bang day" - but (AFAICS) really no compelling case for making the change at all. You'd effectively be saying "lets forget about that 128bit IPv6 everyone has been working on, and do an IPv8 instead with only 64 bit addresses" !
> 
> I think you need to realise that this train left the station a couple of decades ago (that's when address length was discussed and decided upon), and its' not coming back,
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email