IETF Logo Mail Archive

IPv10.

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> Fri, 11 November 2016 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.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 6CDAD12997C; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:03:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.716 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.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 qTG50w7QK_wc; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU004-OMC4S9.hotmail.com (blu004-omc4s9.hotmail.com [65.55.111.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ADFD1298C8; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.111.135]) by BLU004-OMC4S9.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:03:18 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=horKt21fn8dy6J6h4NhOBp7+OBgKDOQYMTd3yxg/J2s=; b=Joe9pRNrzoN445y7FHegFEhHXbypKEkEC5iTvh21/2ZTucggavnZVqlrFAJNCxCGwDH2tebw91cYknmV6QnsnbRrEZsFntAYTlo1l0l+Edf0lMOCeKeSYOLx/ll85qAUIz3Ry41Jolp13G8jI5ssjnFxlrsmqSn5fxYCs6/doFnur+TMc3Qwl/cpUs1itlKxTKZfMeORXV6nnEOJMHnEXb64WYZw84W4Vwa9+VveG1eExUQSqqahn8SkwwhbBNB/mMFvUi6poJSXkJfutQjSsowlTFxn8eamhZTYC8wa41dQEhjJ4qrTqN0TBApM5UobYHTRlhTHxWyNG6B/H3jXcg==
Received: from AM5EUR03FT020.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.16.54) by AM5EUR03HT101.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.17.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.707.3; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:03:16 +0000
Received: from HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.16.55) by AM5EUR03FT020.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.16.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.721.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:03:16 +0000
Received: from HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.176.11]) by HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.176.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0707.013; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:03:16 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: IPv10.
Thread-Topic: IPv10.
Thread-Index: AdI8TObvak1Gih/YQ+mcCjw71Vp1RA==
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:03:16 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR04MB14497AF2B2838C884F265CECBDBB0@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:; UpperCasedChecksum:; SizeAsReceived:7164; Count:36
x-tmn: [1wDKmMqdUL3lVRY6Ox37mQGImhnrADsM]
x-incomingheadercount: 36
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5EUR03HT101; 7:rWTPGzPTbPIpI96IPXHn79lhnQ2VJc/NsNBZBgBiL0dtEgfLR8dKjr5rYoAWBGHrKQEAt3N3pwVNOS8DjgjxsuWUJ5pI0Aw+LzEoxI0QOefmTu6ChxeDnUsyl5KG46ZYnh2VrIt8XsxQNNxkmBgOHdceplhCbj2ecTIbDy9pqjrQkmTjOKYVUPw4qGbRyRyvQVGfTaQBtqwvaa5nXsnF2ldPssHSJgZ2A0WLovx1rg6Ip11OHgZL9oc3TY8IQm0t1PqSnnpLTVDl5sAdz+h1S9p7RPRXtkqQCHpH4onzcXt4s5A+6GDNX/EWtcDkEv6HC8YLStbHY8gowxQQu09+JuwPuqtRX+05aR3FkkDRGjA=
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(98900003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5EUR03HT101; H:HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d1bb02ef-c691-4aa7-28a0-08d40a6564ad
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(1601124038)(1603103113)(1601125047); SRVR:AM5EUR03HT101;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(432015012)(82015046); SRVR:AM5EUR03HT101; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5EUR03HT101;
x-forefront-prvs: 012349AD1C
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HE1PR04MB14497AF2B2838C884F265CECBDBB0HE1PR04MB1449eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Nov 2016 19:03:16.1635 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5EUR03HT101
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2016 19:03:18.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[43A13640:01D23C4E]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/trq1WKW3PEses_nMGQ3Q0gPOC60>
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:03:21 -0000

Thanks everyone for discussing if we are in need for IPv10 or not, and as I can see that many of you think that it has no value, but I wonder why the ietf has many standards trying to allow IPv4 only hosts to communicate to IPv6 only hosts and vice versa (such as NAT-PT and NAT64 and they are complex and not applicable) if there is no need for that function ????!!!!

Anyway, I think that all of you agrees that IPv10 works fine technically and is applicable, but this function will bring no value as the world is moving fast towards the migration to IPv6, and IPv4 only hosts all over the globe will do it soon (which I do not think so), but as all of you believe on that, then I have to as well, and we will see what will happen.

Thanks again, that was an interesting discussion.

Khaled Omar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email