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

Karsten Thomann <> Thu, 30 March 2017 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2089E129851 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LDbjJH8Ygyyr for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:13 -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 3AE2C129450 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linne.localnet ( by linfreserv (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 0C67B3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:16:10 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann <>
Message-ID: <1495230.RzaN2r7Iql@linne>
User-Agent: KMail/ (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.14.3; i686; git-c97962a; 2016-07-14)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Received-SPF: none (linne.localnet: linne.localnet does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=; helo=linne.localnet; mechanism=default; identity=helo; receiver=linfreserv;
X-AXIGEN-SPF-Result: No records
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:16:15 -0000

Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017, 16:29:43 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> > Same issue with the routers in the path. IPv10 would require *all* of
> them to be upgraded for the new packet header format.
> What will happen with one router from a specific company will happen with
> all routers from the same vendors, inserting updates is not that hard,...

Just a small comment, as I don't like this discussion, too.
That "is not hard" might be true for the installation at home users and small 
businesses, but exactly the opposite of "not hard" at every other location.
If you can convince the vendors to redesign their whole hardware designs to 
support a new protocol in the forwarding plane to get a acceptable forwarding 
rate AND the ISP's/MSP's to buy new hardware for many $$$, we can start 
discussing again, but in the meanwhile no one wants to support a third