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

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:06:20 -0400



    Keith,

    
    On 8/16/19 10:51 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

    
      On 8/16/19 10:44 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

      
          32 bit IPv4
            address is enough to represent hierarchical topology of 

            the Internet today. 
          

          well, sure, if you you presume that "the Internet today" is
          limited to only the nodes with publicly reachable addresses. 

        
        It merely means that, even with not very optimized address
        allocation 

        of the Internet today, treating several bits of port number as
        address 

        is enough to represent full hierarchy. 

        
        which is of
          course, completely ridiculous.   and therefore meaningless. 

        
        What's completely ridiculous and meaningless is to assert 

        hierarchy needs 128bit or 64bit address. 

      
      ah, thanks for explaining your position.

      
    I take Ohtasan's thoughts with serious consideration.  His
    contributions have spaned many areas of the IETF.  That does not
    mean I need to agree with him. :)

    
    There are fundemental flaws in our IP stack.  We have not tackled
    them well.  The meta question in this thread is should we be
    thinking about alternatives to IPv6 that really fix things, or do we
    look at alternative patches (NATs, 64bits), or take a stay the
    course (IPv6) approach.

    
    I am undecided.  So I will probably stay the course.  E2E is
    seriously broken (IMHO), and technologies to address are just not
    interesting enough.

    
    Take care.

    
    Bob