Re: IPv10.

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Fri, 11 November 2016 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F531294A6; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:33:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PqJR6YwirbG1; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F024812940D; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 iface id 1c5Ctb-0007oP-8m; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:33:35 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB2BB00618; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:33:36 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: IPv10.
To: Khaled Omar <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:33:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1478874815.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:33:39 -0000

Hi Khaled,

> I wish I’m not bothering you by my e-mails, but all what I’m asking you
> is to find a free time on your calendars so we can discuss, suggest, and
> participate in making the final version of the IPv10 draft and start
> experimenting its work, and once it will work efficiently and we find
> that it will bring a great value to the Internet, it can be standardized
> by the IETF.

Most of the time :-) the IETF works problem oriented.
Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal
for a problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.
I have not understood the point of your solution either,
it looks like having IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Addresses in
an IPv6 header. Such solutions were considered as
not being useful long time ago.

- Check the material for newcomers to the IETF
- Describe the problem that you want to solve
  in an individual Internet-Draft (I-D)
  along with a statement why existing technologies
  do not solve it sufficiently, probably also give a
  sketch of your solution. The I-D is accessible by
  everyone from a central repository.
- You can then solicit discussion of the I-D on certain
  mailing lists that are related to the topic.

Coming back to your proposal, the statement
"IPv10 allows hosts from two IP versions to be able to communicate, and
this can be accomplished by having an IPv10 packet containing a mixture
of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same IP packet header."
is contradictory in itself since neither IPv4-_only_ nor IPv6-only_
hosts will understand your "new" IPv10 format by definition.

Best regards,