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

Randy Bush <> Thu, 29 December 2016 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68953129484 for <>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4nBrEivd0Hb for <>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680E4129450 for <>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cMPoO-0000OL-GN; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:47:20 +0000
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:47:18 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Tony Hain <>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
In-Reply-To: <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$>
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: <>
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: 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.