Re: IPv10.

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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]] On Behalf Of Latif LADID
> [IPv6-based Internet]
> Sent: 12 November 2016 21:27
> To: 'Scott O. Bradner' <[e-mail]>; 'IETF discussion list'
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [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]]
> Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
> To: IETF discussion list <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: IPv10.
> 
> but consistent?
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[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]] On Behalf Of Brian E 
>>> Carpenter
>>> Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
>>> To: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
>>> [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]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>