Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 20 August 2019 04:44 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 4610A1200C7 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ZPhTf3zt; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=i//PVBRi
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 mgSbJO2aQqru for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 2DAC9120233 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4848 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2019 04:37:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12e9.5d5b7916.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=PRvpvbnB4Yuh4ii6L9rtWT9I1tYoBn3ZpzG0wsjx4cc=; b=ZPhTf3ztxRanH3t8cz8QswFJ7rjK9St8y0Qk8+Vpt92XgK1hVlO0V/Yz14xJ4B5aPJCkOucaXdk9xnZjQOigYFudmYQKbJXNcqHa8JyRu2IaG+XUmUsLf0dxhmxIkWnabj9QDZ/PLnvCUR+cSEUpJ+Lsa9LLiRD3yv1uCy1od6iLbNMFpaJe5I6RNorwDwMM0bkDpFZLgw1CBRpUYHDNHCc2vYJvtMYvB3P17Tjiwi6lJPBFAKJzg4vC5qTWGci4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12e9.5d5b7916.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=PRvpvbnB4Yuh4ii6L9rtWT9I1tYoBn3ZpzG0wsjx4cc=; b=i//PVBRivuULjGVW4u6Xzjjt0yFP5Us6FW3RKsXMVfTV3Gn+nCASW8nYsZwkbTpfSYQzCb5EqwmNeMrtytGst4BUw8FmLgdKMhONjxuvVRQYzyBiLEFPDhWpmspzB0Hu0iC0SmbHGqAw5ykSfRSua3m4QmccctiRnP1ItMrahSXJPW800Dv3HWCNzSi6yh4FQRLLWqzymagJtBsK3oJTfEN1P6d+XYTM+LntVV/8EU/5/+yJojdSsDtvXXLYDnjP
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 20 Aug 2019 04:37:42 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1EB8C888446; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:37:41 -0400
Message-Id: <20190820043742.1EB8C888446@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org, irtf-discuss@irtf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Cc: pengshuping@huawei.com
In-Reply-To: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/ybp68EIZJYDXF57tVZPPU2Ngm6g>
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 04:44:26 -0000
In article <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >I just wonder, over two decades ago when the discussions happened, whether the question that >was asked most was " 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 32bits (IPv4) >address space as well?" The short answer to your question is "No". That was not the most asked question. The mailing lists are all archived at the IETF, and you can go back and read the documents if you want. There was a lot of debate about what address size to use, and whether to used a fixed or variable address size. There are things we do with 128 bit addresses that would be difficult to do with 64 bits. As others have noted, the large addresses make it easy to set up network addressing and not have to worry about making each network's chunk of addresses big enough, or running out of bits to handle the local network topology inside a single organization's allocation. It's really nice that every network is a /64, and we don't have to fool around with CIDR boundaries. There are plenty of things wrong with IPv6; it repeats the IPv4 design of assigning addresses to interfaces rather than hosts, the plan that the host part of an address (the low 64 bits) would be based on an interface's MAC address was misguided, the transition from IPv4 was and is very painful, and packet fragmentation works badly and not at all in multicast networks. But the address size wasn't a mistake. R's, John
- [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