IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 12 August 2020 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 2F9ED3A1086 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 IPZZ4F9dooea for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (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 A27863A1084 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:113b:d9e4:7ad:90fd] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:113b:d9e4:7ad:90fd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 068516168C9; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:21:20 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1597213281; bh=T5GlZOoRasrWR0bu72dBqy6NHlmTjDLYqmwoRiG39B8=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=Bj3ezZp9M3V/eBDO/UgfauILwRSDrk2buyRHOH2qTT7lwZm2wa5OnYSkEk/cMNDRP aFf+Tmq5grxMm8LiUYB7r7tfJofocWwH0PGjRswm2D4gTEvX6kI0vc+aYJ2RvlfXfd 0FgtZsaPkQOkDGuZiyxHSh2StWAqeKGTgDSScK+0=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <43E6AD4C-284D-4088-9D6C-2F24062208B1@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A9052A3-8999-4DB8-9EDA-C1E1FC84FFE9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:21:20 +0300
In-Reply-To: <AM7P194MB0723BD2C01221F94050AE995AE420@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
References: <AM7P194MB0723D773FCD8BAE7D9C6C9A8AE420@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <AM7P194MB0723BD2C01221F94050AE995AE420@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-MailScanner-ID: 068516168C9.AF362
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kk8THatSxgzS5iLlLFMTiyUVhlc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:22:22 -0000

Hi,

On 2020-8-12, at 7:27, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:
> It’s really weird to hear the silence for my e-mails at the IETf main list,

you gave it not even four hours since your earlier email, which you posted in the middle of the night (European/US time). I am sure you will get feedback shortly (incl. mine below).

> As I proposed an I-D earlier that offers a solution to this pandemic that started to be distributed in the internet due to IPv4 address space exhaustion and the no migration to IPv6 occurred till now.
> 
> So please take one moment and evaluate the IPv10 I-D and make an accurate decision whether it can be promoted to a Standard or there is another solution that could solve this problem from its roots.

This is not how the IETF operates. Please review RFC2026.

Regarding your proposal, briefly:

(1) A networking architecture consist of much more than a header encoding scheme - that is the easy part.

(2) Simply pointing to IPsec is not a security analysis.

(3) The I-D says "there is no need to think about migration" when there clearly is such a need - the I-D expects all hosts and routers to understand and speak a new packet format.

(4) This paragraph IMO demonstrates best how far from deployment realities the proposal is:

    "IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed
     in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs
     (for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no
     dependence on enterprise users and it is just a software
     development process in the NIC cards of all hosts to allow
     encapsulating both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same IP packet header."

Sorry, but this is unpublishable.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email