Hi, On 15.08.19 at 12:30 Brian Carpenter wrote: > e) 64 isn't enough to allow lots of bits for topology plus lots of bits > for privacy > f) in any case we can compress the headers in low power, low bandwidth > scenarios > g) it's 25 years too late for this discussion even if we were wrong +1 h) it's IMHO not an IRTF question and the IETF has real problems to solve. So Shyam, please stop this discussion, it's really a waste of time. > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, 21:27 Roland Bless, <roland.bless@xxxxxxx > <mailto:roland.bless@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Hi, > > a) the address space was designed of a lifetime of 50-100 years. sorry, typo: s/of/for, i.e., the address space was designed for a lifetime of 50-100 years (at least). > b) we see how hard it is to change the core protocol > 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 > d) there is no problem that needs to be solved here. > > Regards > Roland > > On 15.08.19 at 09:33 shyam bandyopadhyay wrote: > > 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? > > >
