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

[shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>]

To:
The Entire IETF community

    Sub: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space if
         whatever is been trying to achieve with the existing
         approach of IPv6, can be achieved by 64 bits address
         space as well?

Dear Folks,

 I raised this issue couple of times earlier. My intention was to collect
all the points in support of 128 bits address space and try to figure out
whether they can be solved with 64 bits address space as well. I believe
that
all the points that were mentioned in the requirement specification of
IPv6, can
be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I have received comments
and queries from few people (including Suresh Krishnan, Robert Moskowitz,
Fred Baker,
Ted Lemon, Ole Troan, Jordi Palet, Mark Smith and Gyan Mishra) so far. I am
thankful to
all of them for all their inputs. I have tried to answer all the queries
that they
had (Please follow the attached file). I would request more and more people
to come forward
and deliver their inputs in favor of 128 bits address space that can not be
achieved with 64 bits address space.

 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.

 I would request readers to go through draft-shyam-real-ip-framework as a
reference. It
shows that if address space gets assigned to customer networks based on
their
actual need (in contrast to 64 bits prefixes for any customer network in
IPv6), 64 bits
address space is good enough for this world. Along with that, it comes up
with the following:

1. It shows how to make a transition from (NAT based) private IP
   space to (NAT free) real IP space.
2. It comes up with a light weight routing protocol applicable inside
   VLSM tree that satisfies all the features supported by BGP. (It is
   applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the
   addressing architecture).
3. It come up with a simple protocol for Host Identification with Provider
   Independent Address with the approach of DNS. This can be considered
   as an alternative of existing protocol (HIP). (It is
   applicable in IPv6 environment as well with the required changes in the
   addressing architecture).
4. It comes up with a hierarchical distribution of network for the
   convenience of routing and distribution that may be considered
   as useful in the long run.

Hence, I would request all the like minded people to come forward
and look into this matter seriously.

Last time I had sent this mail to the 105attendees list. Robert Moskowoitz
suggested to move it to the IETF mailing list. Fred Baker suggested to send
this
as a proposal to the IRTF list. Hence, I am sending this mail once again.

Thanks and regards,
Shyam