IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv10.

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Fri, 11 November 2016 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 5A89E1297D4; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:55:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Zkisa5yNud4i; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22e.google.com (mail-ua0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (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 36AD512946A; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 20so25310294uak.0; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:55:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+1OVDKNYSg9NsAZy7hrRM7WuZ4jkQNgHKd6fCR2m3nY=; b=PNF13/RLJj5I6lB7Qubqx4egqW9xhLjLhQeWrj19RrI1njAjvSf4dgwxByDfQKq6Y3 LYzEAP5J4R+thRlm+xEW+WtxAmruTdQm1OVhebFyrzKk5Bbwc7niP/9aNshU0NEHJgnA UmVGMN614oku99XLE+eSN1n6RG/KMm7tfwTLaeayxaDN6Or+easaA+69XbOSUTGeL+kf FgVnVgxF/aKJtG0JyuPKSFZoIpJHj1zVr1+K9WfW29iu+5Fwj3CrxeU5P0AsdNuoRiTr GVrlO6yw5RaWWTXexia4s5j5MRwn+reQxOIUam96llJf8oVQ1bxuWqZNB7ZJYvk4Sya/ HVzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+1OVDKNYSg9NsAZy7hrRM7WuZ4jkQNgHKd6fCR2m3nY=; b=de5qaJf67l0OKzYZQCuFRKsk2vehCkZbm2S7Fb1v5DDd3GjfKvemIVXZuTI6Qnih4x gqr8Iby2XFIJxr0v9wzhTox24Eg62Hc5g9GiZBeeikoU/bNHPPLcxpTdmArskWG4a4cg 5uPPAjfQyWD+UObln+ssZgj1UAKiGVyt81LjMaqS0G4xzte1OkOtVBQT4hXyObfmtIIY sjmHcSnHcKi/d+K4ZftF5RkRDi3PaYf0cAe/FwWE6BJRfXYzz6nqvNZdF8n7cej/a9xd qnctQEjnTAaooF0sZgxtMixUrYwzkKM/Z74mRizVbMgtq2gUcYFY9w9khj1lBaUBoI9u uGKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve7Vg9Bo75uDyXqJ2qdMh6ZDy06/TLPODzVaJZ3qn8KWCHPhjLZfzdaNscNy6BHlqMaKWgilFHEkjXPPw==
X-Received: by 10.159.33.193 with SMTP id 59mr3588844uac.28.1478908499378; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:54:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:54:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0a0a2d61-4c4c-2e19-9d7e-9269e780a998@gmail.com>
References: <HE1PR04MB14495F52AADAED56D5F75C4EBDBB0@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20161111145124.rqqecqquea7ckj7s@emily-tablet> <0a0a2d61-4c4c-2e19-9d7e-9269e780a998@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:54:29 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xJdXLdrR342zs2Sp2neexv4umS=Xzk8Fg7CQ0zJVz_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10.
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uQOkJBHNoUKFqYyUuQWxDnnGpeo>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@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: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:55:01 -0000

On 12 November 2016 at 09:45, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2016 03:51, Emily Shepherd wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:38:34PM +0000, Khaled Omar wrote:
>>> You can find the latest version of the IPv10 draft attached in this e-mail.
>>
>> This looks fairly similar to just using a IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
>> within an IPv6 packet [RFC4038]; is there a nuance I'm missing here?
>
> Not a big one. Using version number 10 isn't necessary; these could
> be standard IPv6 packets. But of course it doesn't solve the basic problem
> that makes dual-stack or a middlebox of some kind essential: an unmodified
> IPv4 host can't talk to an IPv6 host, or an IPv10 host, because it doesn't
> understand the new packet format. So this solution does nothing for backwards
> compatibility, unfortunately.
>

I've thought it can be useful to think about how hard this problem is
to solve in a different context.

Imagine you wanted to achieve perfect translation between two spoken
languages, meaning no lost of any meaning at all after translation,
including nuance, and one of the languages only has 10% or less of the
words the other does.

Trying to translate between IPv4 and IPv6 perfectly is the same sort of problem.

Regards,
Mark.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status