Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Fri, 31 March 2017 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861D9126B72 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 23:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZPQ2SzzCGdR8 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 23:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E041279EB for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9A33FA4; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:17:14 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1490941034; bh=ithjOqtOwZVo9NnUgoVvMbFOU4kojkkirLZM9ZdB+vQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=tL88ltwnL8GMI0OCKbOEfVt0+IQRuQTX8mtWhEk5nv8pVBHlVV7iH0YCgCpyYJqeR vw2NJUYXYAlF58lIcVBRjY9L+eV/xClL8EuWJwsY4FstHJBn2goy30ZnF52kKc1Zam zCW/udY1PNWzqCQIMPoBnMKO5bMyF0IfWXv4hfLw=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E7EA3; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:17:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:17:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Khaled Omar <>
cc: int-area <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> null <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 06:17:20 -0000

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar wrote:

> You can read the IPv10 I-D again and all your concerns will be obvious, I don't mind if you have already a series of new questions that will add a new value to the discussion but the time to deploy IPv10 is an important factor.
> We need consensus after understanding how IPv10 works and how it will be deployed.

As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been 
interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000.

Let me give you an IPv6 deployment timeline:

Standards were worked out in the mid 90-ties, afterwards operating system 
vendors started working on it and "real" support started cropping up in 
the early to mid 2000:nds, with a large milestone being Windows Vista in 
2006, where as far as I know this was the first widely used consumer 
operating system to implement this. It then took until Windows 7 timeframe 
around 2010 before people started moving off of Windows XP in ernest, and 
we're still seeing Windows XP in non-trivial numbers. So now in 2017 we're 
seeing most operating systems have comprehensive (albeit perhaps not as 
well-tested as we would like) support for IPv6, where the application 
ecosystem still has a way to go. We're still working on better APIs to 
handle the dual-stackedness problem.

Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is something 
they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10. Then we have 
the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load balancers, 
SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access devices, core routers 
etc. Most of these will require a hardware fork-lift in order to support 
your proposal, because they do not forward packets in a CPU, they forward 
it in purpose-designed hardware that is a lot less flexible in what they 
can do.

So even if we all united now (which won't happen) around your IPv10 
proposal, it would take 5-10 years before the first devices out on the 
market had support for it. Probably 5-10 years after that before support 
is widely available.

IPv10 would delay and confuse deployment of something that is not IPv4. 
While IPv6 is not perfect, there are now hundreds of millions of devices 
on the Internet with IPv6 access. It's proven to work, it's not perfect, 
but we have a decently good idea what to do to make it better.

IPv10 is only injecting FUD into where we need to go debate, which is IPv6 
deployment for all.

Please stop.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: