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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:48 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------