Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 23:26 UTC
Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 7557C1200F1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ADIX4OUqGXl1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (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 37A051200F9 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id w20so3628370edd.2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DZZpud6MjVc+E/WJqJqcAG13jk/Z+KPswdoaAt3RTfc=; b=uCRAAtnL4x5PCZY7BkIsFajDwKg1UjueeZNeuAnxDUWncx1/8be2P0iaG8JrUaYW3w qNrRx3t70cV/H0H2R4iF3g01ejchyotRa0+r3rtKCw7NzQyyGB2FDxqiBm1xFP9j0DAI wrT0AYOUkpW+sM14lqb4vGemVs2blmEi2RX4E5GzxJLmdRr4d0Rb2ei+pduZZjFgfuXd yXxpAdw9L1kTn1SzgP43aiQUHGWI44omlqhecvAl6fXLu7EN6yKbSY98BcSeVcJwnXeQ fTOt7uwo3+i9QDF9JA/6VU/qdwgRDVenLajEouCjaxetu6/BQ44cZ2WtnRCJ6SB1ySlj ogqg==
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=DZZpud6MjVc+E/WJqJqcAG13jk/Z+KPswdoaAt3RTfc=; b=NxK4bFQNJlbPvV7xEozzjYUH5N17fm7ho5CYYbAj0VAfCyZ+kEAmqwFWiSZC3U+Bre iH4vq8aW8cGbrW5uSv1y11gPMXedzQqR2L+8eiLOdiOx9aSX47DaO7cBTUMoi3ds0KMx cS0f2tWu4jLadPJvKv+deX/1IONrS0gztnpvyoNP9BTxRCEKQbdvS7T7J+0owOrihEZp /XhTill7ld9nI6wgQntjYl/s4JnCYxgTlFf/C+ebwKoEpV8XETSIz8IKloC4i7yVuV1G 5JkUt3cIy3SiL5bYGDpSVtw14bRzx33/RAyRkdKcGz9qJ87C4tFMZvxrTY1aVhY9DI2T QI7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYhAtogza7GjuRZ+q8CbSfIfCohlHawoUKUZ8F+BHgG6sDm2pa AJk5y9An+0SHJTyuSGWyIgERDzN0RuxDdNpAX/L1aA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCIKPbet0D75WSbiF65YjOCuqbhbpx3OJVzGaN1EmQWiZEzbf0Eie6R91OMK0OSudulSYsVCi2HNRxpNeIx9Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5806:: with SMTP id m6mr6737105ejq.80.1565911577519; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <cd254463-43ba-2afd-5c3c-f462a74e5c30@kit.edu> <374d84e5-e20a-e89f-d235-703581db1f00@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <374d84e5-e20a-e89f-d235-703581db1f00@si6networks.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36N2F+EDDdnR7omQJoH9LKZQuK5wB+02jFB0T9ZOKEo_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sG3fDxPppXIR_bpoSSkH5u7gePY>
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 23:26:21 -0000
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:48 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote: > > On 15/8/19 12:27, Roland Bless wrote: > [....] > > 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 > [...] > > The MAC addresses should have never been embedded in the IID. In fact, > that's no longer the recommended way to generate IPv6 IIDs. See RFC8064. > It's not the number of addressed nodes that exhausts an address space, it's the various levels of hierarchy to people split the space into (eventually someone will claim 128 bits isn't enough!). There is one relevant implication in this discussion. It's undeniable that IPv6 addresses are four times larger than IPv4 addresses and in some contexts that is an overhead burden. I believe this is being addressed. For instance, 6lopan has a method to compress IPv6 addresses and the header, and there are active drafts that would reduce the overhead in segment routing header which carries lists of IPv6 addresses. Tom > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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