RE: Internet Drafts' Destiney.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

> KRP: describes some form of hierarchical address allocation mechanism but there are no details provided about the "protocol" itself.  There isn't anything to review here because the draft has no workable content.

It is not actually a hierarchical address allocation, it is some kind of organizing the allocation mechanism, the way KRP uses can be applied to the recent allocation mechanism, 1st hex digit of the second group of an IPv6 address determines on which region you are located, the 2nd and 3rd groups of an IPv6 address determines the KRP ASN, no changes will be applied to the recent allocation way.

KRP describes the full routing mechanism from the source to the destination, other details I know should be added but the main idea is described on the KRP ID.

> hence the request for sergeant-at-arms to intervene again.

We can continue the discussion privately so we do not bother the list with many e-mails.

Khaled

  

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Drafts' Destiney.

Randy Bush wrote on 29/05/2018 02:18:
> maybe do an actual review?

There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said by many other people, but let's rinse and repeat anyway:

IPv10: the proposals ignore all previous discussions about ipv4 to ipv6 compatibility schemas.  There's been a good deal of discussion about this over the years, and the general opinion is that direct ipv4-ipv6 compatibility shims are unworkable for a variety of reasons.  Brian Carpenter sent this helpful and constructive email in Nov 2016:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99798.html

This still stands today.

KRP: describes some form of hierarchical address allocation mechanism but there are no details provided about the "protocol" itself.  There isn't anything to review here because the draft has no workable content.

The problem isn't a lack of reviews, it's that these ideas have been discussed repeatedly at the ietf over many years and the consensus is that they are unworkable.

Khaled has not gone to the effort of looking into why they were unworkable, nor has he developed his proposals to the point that they are actually testable in a lab environment (at which point it would become clear that they are unworkable in the real world).

Khaled apparently isn't interested in listening to this feedback.  The feedback and reviews are there.

We've had ~300 emails on ietf@, and nothing has progressed beyond what was stated in Nov 2016, at which stage Khaled was warned multiple times by the sergeant-at-arms of the time that his attempts to bring these topics up on the ietf@ mailing list were not ok:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99875.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99932.html

.... hence the request for sergeant-at-arms to intervene again.

Nick