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

["Bless, Roland (TM)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mikael,

thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!

Regards,
 Roland

Am 31.03.2017 um 08:17 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson:
> 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.