Re: IPv10.

[Michal Krsek <[e-mail]>]

Working in organisation who is submitting proposals into those EU 
initiatives for about 20 years I can say:


Keep working on IPv6 deployment and do not use those as argument to stop 
working on IPv6.


                     Michal


P.S: Some of NGI/NGN (specially for video) mean: let's do brilliant new IPv4

P.P.S: Some of NGI/NGN mean: let's do circuit switching (sometimes over 
http over IPv4 :-) )


On 13/11/2016 10:25, Peter Tattam wrote:
> While I have yet to see any fleshy details, it does sound similar to 
> my idea which got thrown out (IPv6 targets direct from IPv4 using 
> header options and not tunnelling) I believe I still have a bet to 
> collect regarding IPv6 uptake though ;) Peter
>
> On Sun., 13 Nov. 2016 at 8:51 am, Brian E Carpenter 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I believe it can all be safely ignored, but it does seem like a silly
>     waste of resources that they bother to work on it at all.
>
>     Regards
>        Brian
>
>     On 13/11/2016 09:40, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote:
>     > The next one to look into is the new NGI initiative of the European
>     > Commission to start working on new Internet protocols, although
>     this is just
>     > research, after the failure of the Future Internet research
>     program and GENI
>     > in the US (though Openflow was funded at Stanford) so not really
>     a threat
>     > but could be used to put some sanity in researchers in quest of
>     inventing
>     > something new :-)
>     >
>     >
>     https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/next-generation-internet-initi
>     > ative
>     >
>     > https://twitter.com/NGI4eu
>     >
>     > Latif
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Latif LADID
>     > [IPv6-based Internet]
>     > Sent: 12 November 2016 21:27
>     > To: 'Scott O. Bradner' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     'IETF discussion list'
>     > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: RE: IPv10.
>     >
>     > The IETF/3GPP endorsement agreement can be used to stop them as
>     it clearly
>     > states that ETSI should not be involved in IETF work but just
>     endorse it.
>     >
>     > Latif
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     > Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
>     > To: IETF discussion list <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: Re: IPv10.
>     >
>     > but consistent?
>     >
>     > Scott
>     >
>     >> On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>     > <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi Latif,
>     >>
>     >> On 12/11/2016 20:17, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote:
>     >>> Jon Postel will swizel in his grave if v10 is not assigned by
>     IANA first.
>     >>> Let's not confuse the market. A working group at ETSI has been
>     formed
>     >>> 6 months ago called NGP ( Next Gereation Protocols) lashing at
>     v4 and
>     >>> v6 to invent a new one.
>     >>
>     >> How incredibly foolish of them.
>     >>
>     >>   Brian
>     >>
>     >>> Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10 space :-)
>     >>>
>     >>> Latif
>     >>>
>     >>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Brian E
>     >>> Carpenter
>     >>> Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
>     >>> To: Randy Bush <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >>> Cc: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> Subject: Re: IPv10.
>     >>>
>     >>> On 12/11/2016 14:15, Randy Bush wrote:
>     >>>>> Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal for a
>     >>>>> problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> how about ipv4 and ipv6 are incompatible on the wire and this has
>     >>>> created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot?
>     >>>
>     >>> Yes, I suggest mentioning that to Vint, Bob and a few others
>     in 1977,
>     >>> so that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in
>     >>> 2016 will be grateful.
>     >>>
>     >>>   Brian
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> Administrative Requests:
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     >>>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>