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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Fri, 31 March 2017 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B701272E1 for <>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2YHX7MyZMcz for <>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:58:43 -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 D349F129411 for <>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 iface id 1ctrKv-0000q2-3I; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:51:09 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08543B0060C; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:51:09 +0200 (CEST)
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
References: <> <> <>
Cc: int-area <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:51:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1490946669.
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 07:58:44 -0000

Hi Mikael,

thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!


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.