Re: IPv10.

Richard Hartmann <> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDC41294F3; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2uO4Boxx2yF; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56EC1294E3; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g23so149381206wme.1; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:55:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3hG86e/e2DhDQbBCpEQ+tcuZI2Ed1KYydSO2PRDOq+4=; b=SBztfoNT+fnu7KpwWYtiV3YkKl5eF2ZdTBL2OAdAy+gijXXMMZkiwhZq9c7MTD+GMp w3ExbKG89ffItGyZ1ciSd6L+HUHEWU28c6SOpxk9vsyhyusyn8TDKB35BV9AMGA6q1pz 9Fnc5YZZBCvTrPBStGRy+hY7dFhd6ezTspsAlMqkxohyRdVo0fp63aBXVOKQUzMG3UA3 X5+gU3InJhy7Q13yuf0/flu8aMuvJyEk17Msk6GVhCZVHCrtLU+lSNmCFvPczFIfHjch H6UK7D1xPCBZagjrNRJGOCqjh1wmtlsKfPm230DHguguwPMvTTqd2p+6yLDUC00TfqHc VCQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3hG86e/e2DhDQbBCpEQ+tcuZI2Ed1KYydSO2PRDOq+4=; b=MfCGdNztX8Tyu/UJ87QKWmY8h6B7CuttcfZzAD8mHtRpakfatqiQqBxWv731t7LtKs c6Q1E0W/3Uyvib/1BSDtOZWvla308+lbI2UUimfUkzzTAYYUEXlc/HoXEmZ33hPrmsUR obsI0wsMAXJPZJVkF3M0vZpWvqfiT6ZXpXluyViHWEF8nE4pitDfOTTRh16iYgRdsNa8 KcAqmzg8OVvA/CKxKApa65za9Q+r446FNnJKcZ+S6QNVnW0XXuP8mTuw6CIQNKo/2uLg xI/ACElXex1uNfuUx1dbvRVVuDqSL9ALlg3cDaRMlzlF8Rc7coIPj8fYdkaMnLB+s08s VmIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvc2qwThtnQGrQtQz4TX9hO1pTuSLCZAJHdz6HeFgbGMM6tO657opvny4tDP39MH4l5ExoNJYNe1ghdcew==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 5mr28197289wjh.55.1479196500381; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:55:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:54:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Richard Hartmann <>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:54:39 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv10.
To: Khaled Omar <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:55:03 -0000


I understand that irony, sarcasm, and implicit statements can get lost
in translation; as such, I wanted to reply once in no uncertain terms
to avoid any confusion.

Your proposal will not become a RFC.

It uses a technique which was actively removed from the standard and
even if that was not the case, it's way too late. We took ~20 years to
get to the level of IPv6 adoption we have today. Any gains made during
that time would be removed with any, even partial, technology reset.
And this ignores the fact that IPv4 is almost at the end of its useful
life and will largely be replaced; prolonging that process is not in
the interest of the IETF nor of the networking community.

While you are free to follow the process of writing and submitting an
actual ID, believe me when I say that this will not become a RFC.