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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Thu, 29 December 2016 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 25C2812951B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=frobbit.se
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 HDKyFyzKoEmN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B4DE129513 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [77.72.226.187] (dyn-fg187.sth.netnod.se [77.72.226.187]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B544322A5E; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:23:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1483003411; bh=mZkb2L9wJJqQEXo+/yfxYzyi6qvIW8TPCrZtIzj9p8w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=k7EC4xmpiGoUuDt4Jmhdt0GvRa5Tj9UE9XMydw0PEgSrLe2NktG3P0kgMyCmVFrGF q7WWK3ZOhVHXVWZ3EuAMcibNTYykPS291w642nIJFTUjH6yNFBCqzZkzmQuL7eFPkU 2n4NnCQRT6buIuvqUqYDc6bMJk9EvJoqOBAd3Lc0=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:23:32 +0100
Message-ID: <804FC2E1-1141-455A-8E53-33755B732F1A@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_0DBE9A15-CF60-4D98-8DDD-6A2205022BBB_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6072)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/O8Wo0sfePwZXyjyvJmLoHVIhC_M>
Cc: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx, 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: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:23:37 -0000

On 29 Dec 2016, at 10:03, John C Klensin wrote:

> I don't particularly dislike IPv6, I just think we've failed to
> pay enough attention to incentives and barriers.  I wish it were
> otherwise, really I do.

I completely agree with this. But I also see access providers and enterprises that regardless of how they have built their networks today do run out of IPv4 space. And when they have run out they only have a few choices:

1. Add another layer of NAT

2. Buy IPv4 addresses

3. Start running IPv6

No, we are obviously not ready with [3] yet, but neither [1] nor [2] are beautiful situations, and they get worse. Specifically for the ISPs that do not have any CGN yet, but a relatively cheap router in which they terminate one or more VLANs for their customers. I encountered one such access provider yesterday btw.

And that is why I still see [3] coming, but not yet. We are getting closer every year though because the number of things that do need IPv4 addresses increase. And even a NAT box do not decrease the number of IPv4 addresses much due to the number of concurrent flows from clients.

Because of this, I still think we must make [3] easier, because when people really need IPv6 we must be done.

   Patrik