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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 30 December 2016 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57368129426 for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:14 -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 Zu8PRuxUkVat for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 365251293E3 for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f188so180291168pgc.3 for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ha5f6bFdfkcSZueZ+FI0PoFaeAUR0LL8KtwqWvn2474=; b=DkiDHj3UwGEa9TJR7kQw+C8Jelap9+QkKkZ7QCEuNfx++T2UeAGTz/pSEE67hzEo+E jGfVm7IfsXvwbEa6KUK5yv/lGI67OQJ0zxx3PZbcA3mJU2wKdf5oBjGsf8slOIhFMZ9y VtBsWk5iL4JUn8vC2OKuJmZ0cCOmFKUCHhTCjeJPSE8EJPj1pKq8nI6vU2Sm+hdqaTRY FYsK71D4cYOVIZEB2SW09Wfle9liHl1er4UjoPxKXkag6x3gqv3RJHX/9LfuvNhZw2u4 Wv/hNHOiMkEYX5Wx+gJToEu1WnSBu66w6UeQBlDrgFIqviMhmFldXzPws6JPo2IgOiCG JUlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ha5f6bFdfkcSZueZ+FI0PoFaeAUR0LL8KtwqWvn2474=; b=bHdnIMYGCtN0r3uL07rP6eviprGOXkUqOVsJIu8f+dH3ztXywzh2Ia7/zrFwQMMo1Z i9onx33r4Bi1nba5pHU+/0fDY2SSe16vVO7zAItOFjMxakT6ogOOqbQgH0l6l9ONRvGZ ox0e/CyvaW4DfcFulIoK6oeZH/pPjr7kTrKOfeOfcEsiW4aWv4v44jIMfw2JYV/tMImd +gUAbNPF7wrNup8/f+0KdQXKtwePcGdqg64QLttYvuLPp9zGOhgqS0Q7GhZATMVaCGTp GY3PNtxfaXCCDYHlwqPad6/782OFH7MRhwi5kOETI0xrvt3DH++FjaS5SJOWpln2S8PK 1ogA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJAZvMT9AuPMK8nxy4Yf6+yZLtlFGm+bNds11OqK8vLC0iCjxlRHOxjVRMXqdLH8w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g74mr36824923pfj.151.1483128492458; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id p13sm115334381pgf.47.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
To: IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$> <> <> <> <> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:08:19 +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: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
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: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:08:14 -0000

[Responses to several people in the same email]

On 30/12/2016 20:36, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> [Responses to John and Lee in the same email]
> [e] just because IETF never really did agree on how to handle zero-conf. Too many alternatives, and definitely not "as easy" as setting DHCP helper address. This in turn lead to complications in the CPE management. You can not even today "buy a CPE and plug it in".

If you are talking about consumer CPEs, you certainly can.

>> I don¹t see how this is a failure, or how IPv6 isn¹t ready.
> Zeroconf and IPv6 is a mess.

Please be more specific. What doesn't work that you want to work? And which of
those things will not be addressed by homenet?

On 31/12/2016 05:33, heasley wrote:
> Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:31:39PM +0900, Randy Bush:
>>>> 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.

If you're talking about enterprises, I don't see that. (Unless enterprise
network managers are as stupid as Buridan's ass*, that is.)

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

Well, enterprises or campuses that run DHCP for v4 and SLAAC for v6 are far
from unknown. But yes, exit control is desirable, so most likely DHCPv6
will "win" in a large part of the market.

> control in address assignment is useful - what MAC receives what - for nearly
> all but the most simple network, imo.  how is that done with slaac?

It isn't. So what? If that's your requirement, run DHCPv6. Your Android users
can complain to whoever it is that supports Android.