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

On 29 Dec 2016, at 10:03, John C Klensin wrote:

> I don't particularly dislike IPv6, I just think we've failed to
> pay enough attention to incentives and barriers.  I wish it were
> otherwise, really I do.
I completely agree with this. But I also see access providers and enterprises 
that regardless of how they have built their networks today do run out of IPv4 
space. And when they have run out they only have a few choices:

1. Add another layer of NAT

2. Buy IPv4 addresses

3. Start running IPv6

No, we are obviously not ready with [3] yet, but neither [1] nor [2] are 
beautiful situations, and they get worse. Specifically for the ISPs that do not 
have any CGN yet, but a relatively cheap router in which they terminate one or 
more VLANs for their customers. I encountered one such access provider 
yesterday btw.

And that is why I still see [3] coming, but not yet. We are getting closer 
every year though because the number of things that do need IPv4 addresses 
increase. And even a NAT box do not decrease the number of IPv4 addresses much 
due to the number of concurrent flows from clients.

Because of this, I still think we must make [3] easier, because when people 
really need IPv6 we must be done.

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature