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

shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx Thu, 29 December 2016 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
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 C9977129411 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:14:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no 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 q9J5wBhb7ftZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sleekfreak.ath.cx (rrcs-67-79-182-226.se.biz.rr.com [67.79.182.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 495991293E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shogunx (helo=localhost) by sleekfreak.ath.cx with local-esmtp (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>) id 1cMRAo-00044j-Jm; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:14:34 -0500
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:14:34 -0500 (EST)
From: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
In-Reply-To: <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
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> <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wo-JAVkZQIAR522nTRtliB65JOQ>
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 03:14:46 -0000

demonetize IPv4 addresses and the problem will solve itself.  there is 
financial inertia on the side of retaining v4 only stack networks.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Randy Bush wrote:

>> 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
>
>