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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Thu, 29 December 2016 04:27 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 C6D09129417 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 STW4wm7rat9a for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (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 B8C55129413 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id i5so97575303pgh.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=TxMjkXocOpiYXXtoQdB3MY3YQXleJHFC/qMLS09Pl3w=; b=VoyFnI7hzNvkpx/YRI4nZJCYmqR3yhy9Tn2lEgHd3QAg9/5MKHQplf0DuBc/caI3EN 1aXMckV3E7EP+fC3gwl8Rn2WjQTzKmC8a3qSpFkEBDbLItOStqMhJF3NPKon0ehHjsHK M6wvbxW5r6jbPQoNRv48vD5euU/IqxNEZpg91G9OGO1ATQ4DxQaOKtL88aPHUBxAoArD MH6V/UlK4xgh1nhs3nIvrV0smyO2jcQzfzRmZuqqXM6d/Q6QYoBkm1TXyXIwki4x8fnP jLksegUHdcQ8HCK4PGXNilZoXi7x2QWSL+FCyyLlHG4yg0Amt4d6jEiTTwOIUftdJawQ X1zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=TxMjkXocOpiYXXtoQdB3MY3YQXleJHFC/qMLS09Pl3w=; b=O3rpqznhFyA4+s9fw1WC6jbDPefwlyCw2SxdT10oDM3ys0o0TxmmcKHCBwEZcaTmQD OdrZP58EW2QGMRt/MAeVsSYNDRRH+CYq849wfqYVbSCuRpg+EcMe5OhHMAjQ5J7Tgc3E di2yN4X4lTcWN0+QRbvtmcZTFP+pIxbQfWZc5irOMTTv8cuxwUq6LVNI0VGlczzAg04J H3Cdmb8EN4M96uAZL4XqKAhYqWEFv6HhXzKD3qj4r8y4czKtvo/RlsH9ud/srKEtpPxa jNlnf3AWgoCjMo5CYEuZSTKNen0Ha/yi1wSFKswF86mouoKA2rh+5Il/bKLDWB7yt6cd WldQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLpxzkj+B7QBFzL2drxgvxh1uc6SEct3MtG8gEFi9ny9bps6eCj/P6GW918oq+BWg==
X-Received: by 10.84.217.2 with SMTP id o2mr69559960pli.99.1482985635358; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4301:9590:3e15:c2ff:fede:9b90? ([2601:647:4301:9590:3e15:c2ff:fede:9b90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 65sm100555827pfn.12.2016.12.28.20.27.14 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2DB38F35-9384-4B2E-8296-F2CAC28A7893"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:27:13 -0800
Message-Id: <B137A15F-A5C1-41BE-84B5-A12DF2D5AFFC@virtualized.org>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
To: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yCq7DYmC1ujIoxM8JmcWKZiiThc>
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 04:27:17 -0000

On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:14 PM, shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx wrote:
> demonetize IPv4 addresses and the problem will solve itself.

Do you have some magic wand that can make that happen?  It would seem the opposite is happening -- the price for IPv4 addresses is climbing, with rumors of some folks trying to corner the market. This is, of course, unsurprising given Economics 101 and the laws of supply and demand. Should make for interesting times ahead for those organizations that continue to demand IPv4 addresses.

> there is financial inertia on the side of retaining v4 only stack networks.

My suspicion (hope?) is that the increased price of IPv4 (and operational challenges dealing with GGNAT) will encourage folks to take IPv6 more seriously.

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)