RE: IPv10.

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:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Latif LADID
[IPv6-based Internet]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:27
To: 'Scott O. Bradner' <sob@sobco.com>; 'IETF discussion list'
<ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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:sob@sobco.com]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <latif@ladid.lu>; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv10.

but consistent?

Scott

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E 
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
>> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>> Cc: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>; ipv6@ietf.org; 
>> ietf@ietf.org
>> 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
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------