[154039] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Thu Jun 21 22:31:16 2012
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:29:28 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <74E64BA7-9E18-4F2B-9661-3250093CC5E1@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It is the first step to have the RSIP style transparent Internet.
>>
>> The second step is to use port numbers for routing within ISPs.
>> But, it is not necessary today.
>>
> Still doesn't scale. 40 bits isn't enough to uniquely identify a
> conversation end-point.
It's 48 bit.
> If you use port numbers for routing,
> you don't have enough port numbers for conversation IDs.
That you use IPv4 addresses for routing does not make it
unusable for identifications.
Moreover, it is easy to have a transport protocol with
32bit or 48bit port numbers with the end to end fashion
only by modifying end part of the Internet.
>> Unlike IPv4 with natural boundary of /24, routing table
>> explosion of IPv6 is a serious scalability problem.
> Solvable.
It was solvable.
> IPv6 has enough bits that we can use map/encap or
> other various forms of herarchical overlay ASN-based routing
> to resolve those issues over time.
The reality is that situation has been worsening over time.
As RFC2374 was obsoleted long ago, it is now impossible to
restore it.
Masataka Ohta
