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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 30 December 2016 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABBC12956C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:31:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98cgCHP6yrhG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C7312954D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cMtXJ-0001BH-7L; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:31:41 +0000
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:31:39 +0900
Message-ID: <m260m169vo.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m=22?= <paf@frobbit.se>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
In-Reply-To: <8D87002E-FB28-4CA7-8FB5-EFE3A7C00893@frobbit.se>
References: <HE1PR04MB14492A6FA01B592B6DD69093BD920@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <7F96C4EC-B762-4A2C-AF7E-20D92AE7F9CF@nic.cz> <CAEik=Cv0AXRTLKc1azgnKRrMtQxrC19kX5_RqaQNSt9nkDfPFw@mail.gmail.com> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$@tndh.net> <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx> <B137A15F-A5C1-41BE-84B5-A12DF2D5AFFC@virtualized.org> <FE7643B1-28CB-4ABA-AF95-1B831D701E25@frobbit.se> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <804FC2E1-1141-455A-8E53-33755B732F1A@frobbit.se> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <8D87002E-FB28-4CA7-8FB5-EFE3A7C00893@frobbit.se>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AbsIJMh1d7xvOauozEckJBAaoso>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:31:44 -0000

> This implies NAT64 but I do not see that be closer in evolution than
> other alternatives.

the ietf meeting noc has been asked to push nat64/dns64 a bit harder.
we are trying to get beefier and redundant a10s.  if so, we'll ask folk
to seriously exercise it, just to get some experience, document what
works and what does not, etc.

> I see IPv6 deployment:
> a. At some cellphone providers.

and massive cgn :(

> I am not talking about Enterprise. That is ready.
> 
> You say in 7381:
> 
> > Last but not least, one of the most important design choices to make
> > while deploying IPv6 on the internal network is whether to use SLAAC
> > [RFC4862], the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
> > [RFC3315], or a combination thereof.
> 
> To be blunt, as long as there is a choice, we will not see large deployment.

there is no choice.  in all but greenfield, dhcp rules.  and, in the big
enterprises, exit control is big.

randy