Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ipv4-only users still need a way to specify an ipv6 address to talk to ipv6-only users. This RFC seems to suggest that they should just send an ipv10 packet. But then they wouldn't be ipv4-only anymore, and might as well adopt ipv6.
I think the idea here is to have to update the end points only, not having to upgrade the expensive infrastructure in between, which was the reason IPv6 was so slow to be adopted in the first place.
> That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision.
Most consumer routers don't really maintain routing tables (aside form some static mappings for you internal network) so this appears targetted at actual internet/ISP routers.
Those big expensive things that we regularly replace and provide with updates.
Decoding internet packets at scale is usually done inside hardware so at the very least we'll need new ASICs for this I'm guessing.
> [..] and the IPv10 deployment process can be accomplished by ALL technology companies developing OSs for hosts networking and security devices. [..]
Sometime further down the line this shows up though:
> [..] and it is just a software development process in the NIC cards of all hosts to allow encapsulating both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same IP packet header. [..]
I'm not quite sure what the author is getting at but packet encapsulation isn't cheap, you usually don't want to do that in software for large routers, unless they're outfitted with FPGAs for this purpose and you reprogram those instead. I've also never actually seen a firmware update for my NIC show up so I wonder how they envision that happening. Even if that's the case, you'd then still need to update all hosts, which to me seems far from trivial.