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

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

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