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
Strongly second point (g) on the topic being too late to discuss; there are way more important topics to spend limited IRTF cycles on.
Lixia
PS: I served on the IETF IPng Directorate that many years back (and being Deering's next door neighbor in office): there were many factors that influenced the final decision; no simple measure for "right" or "wrong". For people interested in history, a dinner conversation at some future IETF meetings could be more informative.
Hi,
a) the address space was designed of a lifetime of 50-100 years.
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?
>
|
