Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sun, 18 August 2019 18:58 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7C212021C for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 i5Okk_S6W5l2 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) (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 16BDF1201E4 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id j7so14069998ota.9 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
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=EBi+IU0feZdmE0vPQDWAb8Hp+K1cIs7RnEU8bLAHUDU=; b=iMIoLeFP8TUiy6VUv61vpQ90ave+wbfDg+QX2AEkIUKT+IfWyR/h0x+EsIJubrWNIk iXoQX/JdVFswj85oxl3SahtEXig9x63umpHx4GdusvPCqnT+0CTVAHYCWkD4wTMG0HWJ 3Sq9s6ukYUZ4PRg/qtyU6DEcV2zarvxtnk+I8h+dg08eJQLWKI82bVX3TL3F7OBcjEQR 9Lr0BYdL2wTQVMdkfWPJIDdMI+qITQt5suG0Yu8ppK093QYM6rJCR4F2OS/C9wAnFl/X PxoIlNPB78rfSO0gaIJTiVYTsZzaD0WRuvdnujXy1Dj+18VzxLLR06HrAlsUxgvAlbqn X2RQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4p7VULGMdjUBE9Vkep9qPtIADZJqr8KZue38JQJcvBGb+Rswn di5FezOt0fWl6wjrL/wlivFmjmGre3Pz0UkJNog=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxW3K0ngaY1DySvMp/r+HUt5xVOaoJ+fIx7SsYWlicqTgQkXQODfa/SGzaTwVLGhex6P3J4/sbmjGNycxj0KYc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1e0f:: with SMTP id s15mr16498143otr.231.1566154687366; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9b47a8e6-e2a0-49fe-99b8-201364bc40a7@Mikes-IPhone>
In-Reply-To: <9b47a8e6-e2a0-49fe-99b8-201364bc40a7@Mikes-IPhone>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:57:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgjQXMiROZ8UNSE7bpZ_OCBAkmOVyAU8oixtj4aT2WLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdcbc1059068cda6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/5twN9_xsNJxVOYb64z6eyT1h4ro>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:58:10 -0000
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 8:29 PM Michael <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote: > That was not very helpful useful informative responsive etc. how about > identifying what you think is incorrect and why? > I think folk are more interested in being seen to be correct rather than making an argument. I also had someone 'correct' me when I pointed out that the lower 64 bits were to map to a MAC address which was in the process of being extended to 64 bits by being told that lower 64 bits were to map to a MAC address which had been extended to 64 bits In practice we have 2^32 routable networks in the Internet because that is what BGP supports. We do not route on IP addresses, that hasn't happened since the earliest days of the net. Whether packets have 256 bits of routing information (128 bit source + destination) or 128 is really not a major efficiency issue. Changing it would require an absurd amount of effort for no real gain. What would make a major efficiency improvement is to use super jumbo frames. IP packets can be up to 64KB. Now that 1Gb/s networking is ubiquitous and 10Gb/s is on its way and memory is cheap, we should just bite the bullet and expand the MTU to minimize the amount of time routers have to spend doing switching.
- [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits… shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … 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: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … 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: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … 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: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … 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: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Musa Stephen Honlue
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … 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: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … John Levine
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fred Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … John Wroclawski
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fred Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont