RE: IPv10 I-D Destiny.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Liars,

>> you gave it not even four hours since your earlier email, which you posted in the middle of the night (European/US time). I am sure you will get feedback shortly (incl. mine below).

Last time before this time I got zero response that's why I send another e-mail regardless the different time zones.

>> This is not how the IETF operates. Please review RFC2026.

I don't know which way the IETF would like to work, I tried many ways and all are in vain, there should be a different approach specially for urgent problems that can harm all internet users.

>> Regarding your proposal, briefly:

>>> (1) A networking architecture consist of much more than a header encoding scheme - that is the easy part.

Yes, this is very easy.

>>> (2) Simply pointing to IPsec is not a security analysis.

There is no need to security analysis, just mixing the two versions on one header.

>>> (3) The I-D says "there is no need to think about migration" when there clearly is such a need - the I-D expects all hosts and routers to understand and speak a new packet format.

Again, this is not called migration, this is called updating.

>>> (4) This paragraph IMO demonstrates best how far from deployment realities the proposal is:

    "IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed
     in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs
     (for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no
     dependence on enterprise users 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."

Where is the problem.

Best Regards,

Khaled Omar


-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 8:21 AM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: IETF Discussion <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.

Hi,

On 2020-8-12, at 7:27, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> It’s really weird to hear the silence for my e-mails at the IETf main list,

you gave it not even four hours since your earlier email, which you posted in the middle of the night (European/US time). I am sure you will get feedback shortly (incl. mine below).

> As I proposed an I-D earlier that offers a solution to this pandemic that started to be distributed in the internet due to IPv4 address space exhaustion and the no migration to IPv6 occurred till now.
> 
> So please take one moment and evaluate the IPv10 I-D and make an accurate decision whether it can be promoted to a Standard or there is another solution that could solve this problem from its roots.

This is not how the IETF operates. Please review RFC2026.

Regarding your proposal, briefly:

(1) A networking architecture consist of much more than a header encoding scheme - that is the easy part.

(2) Simply pointing to IPsec is not a security analysis.

(3) The I-D says "there is no need to think about migration" when there clearly is such a need - the I-D expects all hosts and routers to understand and speak a new packet format.

(4) This paragraph IMO demonstrates best how far from deployment realities the proposal is:

    "IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed
     in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs
     (for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no
     dependence on enterprise users 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."

Sorry, but this is unpublishable.

Lars