Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
Leonir Hoxha <leoniri.h@gmail.com> Thu, 22 December 2016 11:14 UTC
Return-Path: <leoniri.h@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD385129491 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMZw_yvMxPmQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2681129412 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 15so45487727iom.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xbQFyCko4pami7nX/OAMy777oByc0uguDy3ncQVMjgU=; b=jUhv8q+bDJeNZUJCwBbzMeP+PtnlFAyHxWRou5USFMlTzTCXYUlN3OV2M8a8RvFIiI AdVsz1RQorgUOsbkdJaf6f74BtX3Ygw3jS86MunI37fYRi8DqwaBTMfHsPaW6T2aueaB Twg+so3Mh+eDp5qUvU/0pgql5zvGEt5YIb5Jics7rLILbT0kq0mNrkg/bbtMjN1QQp2M 4ExCZyBT/Bfqr7L9YdgpwYqzMdZawii2Fm1rEfpKhE3PrFG/vfr5FRnO+JiDYo6Y9CMM Mj5woH9BmJCfFe6Cy4qbNkaB1CoEWBebLkxJ2s/mlBJDuu4SE8rPAMzDZZCSvRHqykWt HEXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xbQFyCko4pami7nX/OAMy777oByc0uguDy3ncQVMjgU=; b=ROmpdUrk4OJE1yrtX713YzEmkpHkktr9OKRnaZIOrhalp+QtC8cOfLFtUChfDfsnIl FOxg5BC+jZjJrJPSsgXKNqFPbAUk9HeAz6XmyWUfHgsxUn3iYosBJHbOLfprkjBo6IZ3 PsmQloqxSGptVMZ1ap4f+VON7rCu7vq9dcOBiOzHWjK0E/s4qSARuwWKAvQ9/M1Oj7jE 6s2p18x67qGNZMHfAPZpChYQ0nggBTTXi/Aw7TBxPBpo7RW9y7fkb1QK0LAP4Be6L39s iR2HBHGv5egaPmWHOfOLmJyhe4Js9YPH5Zf3e8ybZE+AlGV69Av8FiYcAX53RvoZ9MWy 9L9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLsp1WTct6xRpW6eGwpM33IDRTxIIw453tof4Wd18Ol1CD2KSNtd1j7VZuvIIDNU55AD/JFLy34AdJnGg==
X-Received: by 10.107.138.142 with SMTP id c14mr8676416ioj.135.1482405256084; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.150.19 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:14:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7F96C4EC-B762-4A2C-AF7E-20D92AE7F9CF@nic.cz>
References: <HE1PR04MB14492A6FA01B592B6DD69093BD920@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <7F96C4EC-B762-4A2C-AF7E-20D92AE7F9CF@nic.cz>
From: Leonir Hoxha <leoniri.h@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:14:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEik=Cv0AXRTLKc1azgnKRrMtQxrC19kX5_RqaQNSt9nkDfPFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e9b1cb3c12d05443d5e8d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ghAIKEEPxB9O3UuehgHONnLR5dA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:14:18 -0000
Hi Khalid, Are you aware what you are proposing!!? Those RFCs are incorporated into all the Vendors for many years now. Hundreds of Experts have been working on these Protocols, and you just want them to obsolete? What is your value proposition, I have read your letter, but honestly it doesn't give me any feeling that it is a real solution. We do have IPv6/IPv4 already talking to each other, why do you think an additional Address Family would make our life easier? Please consider this, and try to answer these questions to yourself. And last, please STOP sending mails to ietf@ietf.org, this is not the right way to do it. Regards, Leonir Hoxha On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > Dear Khaled, > > if you are a new implementation of the Turing Test, then pass my deepest > compliments to your author. Otherwise, PLEASE STOP sending this to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing list. > > Thanks, Lada > > > On 22 Dec 2016, at 11:29, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Easy next step, some RFCs should be obsoleted and some others should be > updated. > > > > For example, these RFCs should be obsoleted: > > > > RFC 1853. > > RFC 2766. > > RFC 6146. > > RFC 6144. > > . > > . > > > > These RFCs should be updated: > > > > RFC 2460. > > . > > . > > . > > > > Looking for a private discussion regarding IPv10 future topics. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Khaled Omar > > > > > > From: Khaled Omar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:24 PM > > To: 'ietf@ietf.org' > > Subject: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt). > > > > Hi IETF members, > > > > I would like to inform you that the IPv10 Internet draft has been > successfully uploaded. > > > > Here is the link for the IPv10 Internet draft > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt > > > > All participants for the IPv10 discussion regardless if there will be > addition or modification will be highly appreciated. > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Khaled Omar > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > > -- ---- *Leonir Hoxha*
- IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt… Khaled Omar
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Khaled Omar
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Leonir Hoxha
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Tony Hain
- Re IPv6 adoption (Was Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix… Steve Crocker
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Conrad
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10) S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Lee Howard
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10 Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… heasley
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Stewart Bryant
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Farmer
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Jeff Tantsura
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush