Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On 12. 08. 20 14:25, IETF Sergeant at Arms wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team
> (described in more detail at [1]) consider this thread [2] to be more
> appropriate for [e-mail] [3]. And as per the IETF discussion
> list charter [4], we suggest that the discussions should be moved to the
> more specific forum identified.

Can this possibly ever help? Here is my message that I sent to this list
almost four years ago:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xIm0l6b24OGljNzZsKzLhGFGxMU/

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c8Un1c9wNrXUrzPOci_EdLEHBNY/
> [3] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005
> 
> On 12/08/20 11:51 am, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2020-8-12, at 7:27, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> 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
>>
> 

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67