We need to go with 128 bits because there are literally billions of nodes (smartphones, etc.), billions of dollars of hardware and software, and 10s of 1000s of networks (at least - the global IPv6 route table has 70 000+ routes in it) that currently use 128 bit IPv6 addresses.. We have a massive installed base.
If you want to argue against 128 bit addresses, you'll first need to first work on a time machine to go back to the middle 1990s when that decision was made.
There are much better and bigger problems to solve that will have much more useful outcomes when solved than now trying to shrink IPv6 addresses back to 64 bits or any other size.
What ever savings you think you're going to make while be pale in comparison to the cost of changing all existing IPv6 deployments to a different size address.
You're effectively proposing another entirely new Internet Protocol deployment, and based on how hard IPv6 has ended up being, yours will be even harder.
On Thu., 15 Aug. 2019, 17:34 shyam bandyopadhyay, <shyamb66@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To:--------------------------------------------------------------------The Entire IETF communitySub: 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 collectall the points in support of 128 bits address space and try to figure outwhether they can be solved with 64 bits address space as well. I believe thatall the points that were mentioned in the requirement specification of IPv6, can
be achieved with 64 bits address space as well. I have received commentsand 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 toall of them for all their inputs. I have tried to answer all the queries that theyhad (Please follow the attached file). I would request more and more people to come forwardand deliver their inputs in favor of 128 bits address space that can not beachieved with 64 bits address space.
If it can be shown that 64 bits address space is good enough to solveall the requirements, either we have to move back to 64 bits addressspace 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. Itshows that if address space gets assigned to customer networks based on theiractual 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
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
