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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 29 December 2016 01:47 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 68953129484 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:23 -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 C4nBrEivd0Hb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:22 -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 680E4129450 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:22 -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 1cMPoO-0000OL-GN; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:47:20 +0000
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:47:18 +0900
Message-ID: <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
In-Reply-To: <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$@tndh.net>
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>
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/vVtx5CQPl7kwu66zjFu4GnsNa7o>
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: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:47:23 -0000

> Finally, this proposal does nothing to solve the problem it
> identifies, legacy IPv4 hosts in the enterprise environment that will
> not migrate. There appears to be an unstated assumption that
> administrators of legacy hosts will make the changes necessary for
> this inconsistent and underspecified proposal, despite the
> demonstrated fact that they are unwilling to make the well documented
> changes to deploy IPv6 because they simply refuse to make a change, or
> to learn something new.

exactly.  enterprises have een controllong their environments and
permissions across it based on ip assignment via dhcp for a few
decades.  and ipv4 nat is a much easier and cheaper way to get their
job done than trying to deal with ipv6.

in general, i do not find it a very viable business strategy to tell
my customers to do things they just do not want to do.  pushing water
uphill.  and we have been so good at denial for a decades.

we blamed the operators.  we blamed the cpe vendors.  we blamed the
router vendors.  and now we blame the users.  it's always someone
else's fault.

randy