IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 0600F120072; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=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 YVmMGt4EEznC; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 23BBC120094; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id s49so1751059edb.1; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=83BVCGwsV7BHyALKRQwGXlKsVWxmKqHm0C/2o81a3i0=; b=ltp5CpepLAQTqraSu4lrXmiZWrHrgbnINQl6UHIMPCBbykLtxmBpHWqOD8ZA7Tb7mk Tqa3gjhOwix9kQ37zo5LCX/GThFnWX3UzjLfwK3I1LMNn5KBZTs2YtufEAhUZv+w45Tq 4DdPLd6WqvBQmMAHM3+ufzWKRpOaHB5DrbCB+meamGGtiH+bMnJCJHxE1FUY9Lo4F42c 9Qqz3ZBWRYz5iaY3iSDKjl4WzKeQ7suk3d+4IR1OB6K6E/CqBK6IZYzLauM+5ElWFSnt YT4ihPaoeFOHB6hglVQAJI9G9FCjdlcPlotiR36XzQdPlqknkmdFJv6hus2UIeaGW4BR 7P9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=83BVCGwsV7BHyALKRQwGXlKsVWxmKqHm0C/2o81a3i0=; b=WHU95P5Sgk9gZMASwDFmkhaj/9eeI8pP1CcPYaiGHe6FZpvt/SUdYXQ5CPnI4csgkg EIZYE8mcRtHFuFvvRy50FMaPXihjtZ58+tBDHuYOlBuEVxFfbGlD/Jheelji3QsmKP6g erIovdKS24Y3wsiaa2QXSU9kPRIzzbsMZUij42Wp5Ab/lUVxjAVKdDNoJjVLFdm6Xlj7 +Q8MRzhbUgTo+GK23EeCM9gmRWZFGd0BPkard/eu+B0UVL88n6v63zpKWDjCAEaoCnfu lBY4y77heuogdZz0Y3fQgzYlLSmnXpoY/eKBBWNxU5Pc7tA59CRcdIEBtBXZBe+TUprt mvvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUtDDNLNl2AVsJKDP9FgKckDoVkk544AfF0zW9GDI9BVQmgqi94 EXdjLiqa1R0ZjxeldGUugS9NgnQfCp9KXr+h2Rk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz1nc4NWbXIgzVEKWIm9Hu1IJ7Jm5ZgHalsAN4WG8ihuY5UIt8PQWUMx7EvUPSKDyQnscxypQgaRqPjL7PVkcM=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:fd91:: with SMTP id o17mr4611624edt.86.1565865061723; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <cd254463-43ba-2afd-5c3c-f462a74e5c30@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <cd254463-43ba-2afd-5c3c-f462a74e5c30@kit.edu>
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:30:49 +1200
Message-ID: <CANMZLAat4X+Eh+fgTrbikO6dusvcvvUr5foj=3OEnbRhQtOHSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Cc: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c530650590255e87"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/n1hh-Dasw0ENkVQPS8EpYTlbIaY>
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 10:31:06 -0000

e) 64 isn't enough to allow lots of bits for topology plus lots of bits for
privacy
f) in any case we can compress the headers in low power, low bandwidth
scenarios
g) it's 25 years too late for this discussion even if we were wrong

Regards
    Brian
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, 21:27 Roland Bless, <roland.bless@kit.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> a) the address space was designed of a lifetime of 50-100 years.
> b) we see how hard it is to change the core protocol
> c) given the increasing number of virtual machines and IoT devices 64
> bit isn't sufficient, see also the discussion of new MAC address lengths
> d) there is no problem that needs to be solved here.
>
> Regards
>  Roland
>
> On 15.08.19 at 09:33 shyam bandyopadhyay 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?
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email