RE: New Approach For Discussing IPng

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

>> That would be an accurate description of tunnel mode IPSEC. If that is what you are proposing, numerous v4/v6 tunneling standards are already defined and are well developed.

I’m not asking for an IPSec tunnel, I’m proposing something like that tunnel when it adds another header with different source and destination addresses.

Once that will be accomplished, then peacefully IPv4 and IPv6 can coexist and communicate.

Khaled Omar

From: Tom Beecher [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 3:45 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>; Joe Touch <[e-mail]>; Lloyd W <[e-mail]>; IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Approach For Discussing IPng

How VPN tunnels works in reality?! I think it works by first encrypting the original packet, THEN, "adding a new source and destination addresses to the packet", this is what I'm asking for to allow IPv10 concept works.

That would be an accurate description of tunnel mode IPSEC. If that is what you are proposing, numerous v4/v6 tunneling standards are already defined and are well developed.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:30 AM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Brian,

>> Back in 1994, it had become clear that deploying new header options in IPv4 across the Internet was in practice impossible, however well they worked in the lab. Extending IPv4 was therefore theoretically possible but impossible in reality. So we started IPv6.

How VPN tunnels works in reality?! I think it works by first encrypting the original packet, THEN, "adding a new source and destination addresses to the packet", this is what I'm asking for to allow IPv10 concept works.

Regards,

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 6:53 AM
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Joe Touch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Lloyd W <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: New Approach For Discussing IPng

I've been keeping clear of this thread, but I think Phill does remind us of an important point (hence the small change of subject):
On 19-Apr-21 15:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
> We keep having people coming along making these suggestions for IPv8, IPv10, etc. etc. and the inventors never once seem fit to ask what is so different about their proposal it can't be done in IPv6.

Back in 1994, it had become clear that deploying new header options in IPv4 across the Internet was in practice impossible, however well they worked in the lab. Extending IPv4 was therefore theoretically possible but impossible in reality. So we started IPv6.

27 years later, it has become clear that deploying new extension headers in IPv6 across the Internet is in practice impossible, however well they work in the lab.

There's little prospect that things would be different if we repeat the experiment.

> The whole point of the Internet is the narrow waist is really simple.

As it is written: "The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible."

(What about deterministic networking? Indeed, that requires support as a feature of the communication system. Therefore, it will never happen across the Internet as a whole.)

    Brian