Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).

Randy Bush <> Sun, 01 January 2017 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D865129552 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:25:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8STz61NXn5hh for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F6FA12940E for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cNTy2-0007pF-D8; Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:25:42 +0000
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 09:25:40 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$> <> <> <> <> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:25:45 -0000

>>> Android users can complain to whoever it is that supports Android.
>> for some silly reason, my customers don't think they pay me for
>> blame shifting.  they just want things to work.
> Yes. So not implementing DHCPv6 might be a self-defeating decision
> by an operating system developer, don't you think?

the developer in question is an ipv6 purist.  shooting himself in the
foot and the customers at the same time.  it's an ipv6 tradition.

>> and, let me repeat for the fourth time, enterprises of scale use dhcp
>> to drive clients to the desired exit.
> Excuse my ignorance, but which DHCP options does that involve?

code 3 in v4, router option.  folk use it to cause subsets of the space
to take different exits.

>> dhcp6 does not let them do that.  without feature parity we don't get
>> to play.
> Which is why I think RFC 8028 has value.  It's intended to support
> exit selection via first-hop selection.

that is not feature parity.  that is yet one more ipv6 'feature' that is
just different for religious reasons.  instead of giving the customer
what they want, we invent shiny new stuff and wonder why they walked
away.  it must be that they are stupid.