Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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 <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 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

Let me make this clear: we are working on Ipv6 deployment, not deployment of alternatives or transition technologies. This I have explained the process by which folks can get air time. IPv10 doesn’t qualify: you haven’t identified a working group in which the protocol described in section 4 is under discussion, you haven’t posted a revision, and multiple people have told you it doesn’t make sense in their environment.

In my first response to you, I tried very hard to be polite and give you an outline of your way forward. People complain that the IETF can be difficult. Now it’s my turn to be difficult.

Your proposed protocol doesn’t fit v6ops’ charter. Therefore, no, you don’t get air time.