Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:37 PM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
wrote:

> >> have you ever run a network?
>
> Yes.
>
> >> It is the operators who have to change all of their security (firewall
> rules, access lists, etc.), not the vendors. They have to modify the
> hardware, invent new asics, write new software.
>
> Will be the same except that the location of the addresses will be changed
> in the packet header, and this is a software process.
>

... except that it is not -- almost all routers forward in hardware, and
replacing them all is not feasible...

>
> >> Can you show us a running implementation? Windows, Linux, Free Range
> Routing? Do you have a plan to modify the routing protocols used today
> (BGP, KRP, NEP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS, etc.)?
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not a software developer, and regarding the routing
> protocols, what changes will occur, routers will build normally their
> routing tables based on the used routing protocol normally, all that will
> be changed is the coming packet which will be IPv10 packet, routers will
> choose the corresponding routing tables based on the destination IP address
> inside the IPv10 packet.
>
> >> Just repeating your arguments does not seem to help. And IPv6 is a good
> example how long it takes to implement a new protocol.
>
> I think you are aware of the recent situation, the community is angry when
> they feel that no solution showed by the organization that responsible for
> making Internet standards.
>
> >> Please go forward, develop your draft, write some code to show how easy
> it is to implement your solution, but stop trying to convince us with what
> you have, you need more.
>
> Simply, if you are not convinced, don't participate in the standardization
> process and the code developing process.
>

In my opinion this thread is off-topic for v6ops; it is not related to IPv6
operations.

W

>
> Khaled Omar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Wilhelm Boeddinghaus
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 6:19 PM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
>
> Hi Khaled,
>
> have you ever run a network?
>
> It is the operators who have to change all of their security (firewall
> rules, access lists, etc.), not the vendors. They have to modify the
> hardware, invent new asics, write new software.
>
> The problem you try to solve is not "expensive" enough for the world to
> invest in your solution. Its all about money.
>
> Can you show us a running implementation? Windows, Linux, Free Range
> Routing? Do you have a plan to modify the routing protocols used today
> (BGP, OSPF, ISIS, etc.)? Maybe a good showcase can convince the engineers
> and operators on this list. Just repeating your arguments does not seem to
> help. And IPv6 is a good example how long it takes to implement a new
> protocol.
>
> Please go forward, develop your draft, write some code to show how easy it
> is to implement your solution, but stop trying to convince us with what you
> have, you need more.
>
> Best,
>
> Wilhelm
>
> Am 14.09.2020 um 17:11 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> > Yes, but WHO will do that modification, those will do it:
> >
> > Google, Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, Huawei, Juniper, Fortinet, etc.......
> >
> > Not the USERS.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no>
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:08 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>; v6ops@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
> >
> > On 14.09.2020 16:23, Khaled Omar wrote:
> >
> >>>> You say this is not a new protocol, but you still specify a header
> format in section 4 of your draft.
> >> The discussion will keep repeating if the ietf will not show a
> different solution to the community that suffers now from the depletion of
> IPv4.
> >
> > No. The discussion keeps repeating because you do not realize that you
> are trying to suggest that ALL hosts on the internet needs to be updated to
> support _another_ protocol than IPv4 and IPv6.  A "protocol" you have
> invented.  Nobody else is bringing this suggestion up again and again.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Regarding the new packet header, users will not have a problem with it,
> its migration from v4 packet to v10 packet, that’s all.
> >
> > USERS don't have a problem with IPv6 headers either.  But their hardware
> might have issues.  And their OS will definitely have issues with this new
> protocol.  And all their firewalls, access lists, applications, security
> policies etc needs to be reconfigured in the exact same way if they decide
> to start using "IPv10" as they would if they started using IPv6.
> >
> >
> > Rgds.
> >
> > /Ola (T)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf