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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 21 August 2019 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 07D0A120121 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 gWEtdOTIUKAb for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C71D4120098 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 89011 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2019 20:01:36 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 21 Aug 2019 20:01:36 -0000
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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> <CAOj+MMH=wb+v137TvQkZ+KxaBobA8qYmvoHkFzEgi9-PP-Lqxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <b8c82987-e056-dd6c-e630-5b7468c30510@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 05:13:43 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH=wb+v137TvQkZ+KxaBobA8qYmvoHkFzEgi9-PP-Lqxg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/szMPDLB-I7qR9q6vKLJpGqEtzxY>
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:20:26 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote:

> And btw I would not immediately dismiss LISP nor call it garbage till you
> can demonstrate code and deployment which can do better.

Do better what?

For ID->locator mapping, DNS is the way to go and there is no
point involving routing systems.

For multihoming, current BGP unicast routing system is doing it
poorly but no worse than LISP.

For frequently changing locators, mobile IP takes care of them
with home agents, without flooding mobility information all over
the global routing system.

The point of ID/locator separation is to identify transport
connection by ID only, which enables locator rewriting.
Source locator rewriting makes it reliable. Destination
locator rewriting is sometimes useful for forwarding
without MTU reduction by IP over IP. That's all.

						Masataka Ohta