IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 C4D211200C7 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 wRgBsXs-vQKt for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blue.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (blue.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.20]) (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 514971200E7 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AB36A2D1B; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:23:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-89-43.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.89.43]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0B3866A2E1F; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:23:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a81.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.5); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:23:55 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Tasty-Lettuce: 415618ba2dac46db_1565904235485_1682530366
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1565904235485:1950795171
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1565904235484
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D4A80211; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=2d0LIkJSTYL2hV 661/d+LgLOPSc=; b=VN1VW5xbVvlm7gGlCorIrvUbCbblZ9apPSWeYS2TcYKHZZ qCqM5bhz72Pf2OoyLKvJcr21poD0Gne/s7BLJakXtEnEP7BPIToAUN1GF38c6uk8 ZB0QlgTbOO+BQo5RLJKO6MUq6RhJ9nAWzOYOyoWnSQ9/hn473kL0+Pkq5sjT0=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AA37801FD; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:23:49 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a81
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Sam Kerner <skerner@chromium.org>
Cc: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190815212349.GB19967@localhost>
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMK=nQuvmZt4zwy87C9nvf31Ns+t=CGHhnFBy2cgRNdKQH5S9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMK=nQuvmZt4zwy87C9nvf31Ns+t=CGHhnFBy2cgRNdKQH5S9Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudefuddgudehlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepud
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/CrTQp-uKBoN7lWQeTYLT5RtfgWY>
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:24:00 -0000

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:26:57AM -0400, Sam Kerner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:33 AM shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  If it can be shown that 64 bits address space is good enough to solve
> > all the requirements, either we have to move back to 64 bits address
> > space in the future or we have to carry through this extra burden for ever for no reason.
> 
> Even if 64 bit addresses are good enough, why does it follow that we
> want to transition to them?  What is the burden you are concerned
> with?

We've not toasted to IPv6's universal deployment at every IETF meeting
for decades to give up now!

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email