Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 21 August 2019 09:54 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 6F483120856 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:54:32 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.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 6-XZUbdiXuQn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 96B0E1208DC for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id 201so1237035qkm.9 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pUhc0Mbk8+cd8AWal5HTsCJXJZd2CWIPvHC4uMQmG1Q=; b=GOXGew8K/XxatuC+C/LjS/mR7PC09IC3imDelYVnO1FDy9o8anVW613N2ej+FCtNaA yXPlejVZPtnEZ8w+jzGn+SHK6Mpwqjd9yXvyuYduimJSnhrDI5Guiy0UBwTRJmAmEV78 cdzLAk/gpTahB7FaV6X16s3d5RN/G/yjUuQt+TCRkz2TWcTMLh0SShhmyCMcGrEXlFtG FGxnQGOH5xsRdyfP2Il1EYuABGvWAoTg1UJALCQ6BXDcSlETcf+jb0CtvIiyaTd5kOzd y8Ys6mQN2tYvqWDcsW05pSveLrIQ62PaTulkeWBHVfD0AW+seLIkj4s7zm6MmnKGB5Hs 6J0g==
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=pUhc0Mbk8+cd8AWal5HTsCJXJZd2CWIPvHC4uMQmG1Q=; b=VMnhx31HV+FiTkaTwq/j8z20IU2jqEmyrkLnYTT/UOfk34+dqMm1UK17mKf72y0L8a 6jXfE1S1kTV59AHiowvyZTlW+7qT+PLQ40NVRDMHgptJMrI7PQbxdnIVs20vZme1JbPo sKllHfzFID4BlJiltcoXlUfRg/arLn++G2fVHyf14MenwSV3qpGkSbV0hV2fMmh5L+Rk 14/e24geXk+AE7jzqXkKbSGM2hCnL4xn8q2hm6CYEbkedmfQ+oA27ChrJ2WKnjAmIHeW 3UOsqzAVeWjwgfGv4Dn5K9wbDCbXfjXUAdRLwdL4TpQobfHbqxs8ztZDiy+H57J+QvRr IFEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW36LDuLY8b26sO0uHL9O8E1TKn41eZdrLPzJ2F3LYhHtoBdyqA d+plhpwb1lir0Ip27JEDj3jl/hJWYhrJHqMXOH2uRA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyxeMWmQrqhzbRQ8xLkg4/hiSBqpINQkbssfnND1lmfJTR3fAH9Hzc49gWpL/lhqkr97eomVNuGCGix5LbMA0g=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:dd82:: with SMTP id r124mr29623762qkf.134.1566381268306; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <10708d7b-a4bc-f9d8-a644-7c5617f5ebf3@gont.com.ar> <CAPTMOtLyiUpi4L+7TpLePvm=JtpEnw-Yv1NCKvO63_HK2jFnCA@mail.gmail.com> <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH=wb+v137TvQkZ+KxaBobA8qYmvoHkFzEgi9-PP-Lqxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000149f2505909d8fb7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ulQRzJ8oRDTdnm1ul9YZSd6-f-g>
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:54:33 -0000
Dear Ohta-san, While some of your points are very good I would like to make an observation that your idea expressed in the quoted below draft is a bit flown. You say: *"Instead, APIs and applications must be modified to detect and react against the loss of connection."* Well it is clear that you are making an implicit assumption that quality of the available paths is equal and all you need to care about is end to end connectivity/reachability. Real life shows otherwise. When I have N providers regardless if this is in my POP in Toyosu, my POP in NY or my home the quality of the path significantly differs on a per destination basis. So if I were to give my hosts full power to decide which is the optimal end to end path to choose - imagine having even mini DC at each location - all 1000s of hosts would now need to probe all paths to choose optimal exit to reach their destinations. Note that passive probing will not cut it so active probing is required as well. With that it is very clear that my edge router should do that job on behalf of 1000s of endpoints rather then each host itself. Few weeks back I got few list of pointers to some proposals trying to tackle that real problem: rfc7556, DHCPv6 class based prefix or IPv6 Prefix Properties. As you can see making some of those measurements and classifications centrally is the only optimal option followed by locally educating end hosts or even applications about optimal paths. And btw I would not immediately dismiss LISP nor call it garbage till you can demonstrate code and deployment which can do better. Kind regards, R. On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:51 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > shyam bandyopadhyay wrote: > > > draft-shyam-real-ip-framework > > is a reinvention of geography based addressing not acceptable > by ISPs in the real world. > > > 2. Separation between Locators and Identifiers. Even though it > > was not documented in the requirement specification of IPv6, growth of > > routing table have become a real problem. One of the source of this > > growth is the way site multihoming has been supported in the existing > > system. Designers spent hell lot of time to come up with solutions like > > ILNP/LISP (with the concept of PI addresses) > > LISP is not a solution but yet another garbage. > > Attempt to convert ID to locator at the end (using ID as locator) > means loss of reachability to the end results in lack of conversion, > which is not multihoming. > > Additional "optimization" to convert ID to locator also in the network > is against the E2E principle needing conversion information, amount > of which is at least proportional to the number of multihomed sites, > in the network, which is no better than having global routing table > entries, number of which is proportional to the number of multihomed > sites. > > To make multihoming scale, think end to end, which means both ends > must be involved to make multihoming scale, which is what > draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-* proposes. > > Masataka Ohta > >
- 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