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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 01 January 2017 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0723129498 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 saMjmIe6m_au for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A37129485 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i5so126894508pgh.2 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fCFQLr9zIof78hsHlBVvnu577HOLTIynFRSQ0bhoYbw=; b=vc76Ep+Bt4toP4UKZX9rkmRu9WJE0RniR1FJ5NUiLCrxRuLRhThYM3zvhKJdTPRIF6 8gboNCVVRrQDxYe0dL54H+yMzXYojpbvcWAvpdBiOsfFGHfDiXd7n8+UCqFqIxuclDX6 8K/DAt73W84Yo2kwwEFpG4DLDmEMM1Rh1Os+4vFb/D9cZLpuwOhXYVjVJB4CkU3JcxOV 2trzMPEk2BV197iN0YDsWP0A9ASPJD2d4AWZFS1vjbmSKtXrL3+RTkGmSH0iKYG7Lb81 +PnbUjEnR2XCJrBzvpDgrnZOTwTtOxC4Lt4zb6E7iAdZPfimW+KgqxOr5P8QUEf93qri oVzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fCFQLr9zIof78hsHlBVvnu577HOLTIynFRSQ0bhoYbw=; b=fyAUBiAuhZn9Aw9yWPbx1M54e+kTbIa6VfEeeWMlY5CvowVFtBN/VKrQVTmQvmKLUr UhxFCfL3ht/UUbEwVY/G91yW7p/6DFom/Lx9y+DzdQu5SXOtZSl5tZR8azaosPsYunAe phUhAnlmPKMQG5OyjZ+Ep0LwKmz2eBxSNmDi3zMhDp/EZz1QJDx+tZqdH6jVMsMGWQqd oOMRyJMbQR7uI4qv6Pg1od1QzmcKD0XiXt4bR2VuWFuJLrqNNfjBAxHzCW9FRbaBBfUQ btMxAXgXKSNAHoe0oiZhseoGd7T3SJuGJpvWqKAI4SgBCnmZfqAdTP608rQKJFTVsB71 cMhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIBrOLtCjmCkqNbxWNrI62VrP8f/dKo0QZ+Q/yydmmYn/sPrUagJmc9AxoJmUHf2A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c21mr99122008pgi.166.1483241245223; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id l71sm74774545pga.21.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
To: Randy Bush <>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$> <> <> <> <> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:27:20 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 03:27:27 -0000

On 01/01/2017 13:25, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> 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.

Thanks, I was wondering whether you meant something more subtle than that.
And yes, things like draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option and
draft-sarikaya-dhc-dhcpv6-raoptions-sadr have a sad history of being trampled.

In fact I haven't changed my mind since 2012:

>>> 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.  

It's a solution that will work the same for SLAAC-derived and
DHCPv6-derived host addresses (and for manually assigned host addresses,
for that matter), so I don't think that is very fair. I agree that it
moves the necessary config magic from the DHCP(v6) screen to the router
screen, but the logical result is the same. Given the lemons available,
it seems like a reasonable lemonade recipe.

However (see above) I baiscally agree with you. When MIF was first proposed
I said "all we really need is a default router per prefix" and IMNSHO that's
still true.

> 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.

Hardly, but they are sometimes a bit set in their ways. Change costs