Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

> I don't know what "anything will process a L3 packet" means. Please answer directly: does this proposal need changes in every OS or not?

Any networking host (PC, Laptop, Server, Cell Phone) must be able to allow the encapsulation of both IP versions in the same L3 packet header, other networking devices (Router, Firewalls, IDS, IPS, LB, etc.) must be able to understand the IPv10 packet to know what is the source IP address and what is the destination IP address.

So, for a direct answer, Yes, the recent OSs' developers are few, the deployment process will depend on how they can push new updates globally.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Khaled Omar
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> "all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task"...
>>>What makes you think it is ever an easy task to get all OSes to uniformly support anything? Please provide an implementation so we can evaluate the prospects.
>
> For the 2nd time:
>
> "I shouldn't list all devices that need to support IPv10, simply, anything will process a L3 packet, should understand that the IPv10 packet can contain a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
>
I don't know what "anything will process an L3 packet" means. Please answer directly: does this proposal need changes in every OS or not?

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:19 PM
> To: Khaled Omar
> Cc: Bless, Roland (TM); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000.
>>
>> FYI, IPv10 will allow IPv4 to communicate to IPv6 and vice versa, how can it be interesting if it was presented before IPv6 was even developed !
>>
>>> Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is something they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10. Then we have the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load balancers, SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access devices, core routers etc.
>>
>> Please, let's not be against ourselves, all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task, OSs will not require support for a new IP version like IPv6, they will just be enabled to support the encapsulation of both version on the same L3 packet header.
>
> "all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task"...
> What makes you think it is ever an easy task to get all OSes to uniformly support anything? Please provide an implementation so we can evaluate the prospects.
>
> Tom
>
>>
>> Also, networking devices will be upgraded to understand the new IPv10 packet, I said earlier I don't mind If the process will take some time but we should eventually reach consensus, I shouldn't list all devices that need to support IPv10, simply, anything will process a L3 packet, should understand that the IPv10 packet can contain a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Int-area [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bless, 
>> Roland (TM)
>> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:51 AM
>> To: Mikael Abrahamsson
>> Cc: int-area
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
>>
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>> thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Roland
>>
>> Am 31.03.2017 um 08:17 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson:
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar wrote:
>>>
>>>>  You can read the IPv10 I-D again and all your concerns will be 
>>>> obvious, I don't mind if you have already a series of new questions 
>>>> that will add a new value to the discussion but the time to deploy
>>>> IPv10 is an important factor.
>>>>
>>>> We need consensus after understanding how IPv10 works and how it 
>>>> will be deployed.
>>>
>>> As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been 
>>> interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000.
>>>
>>> Let me give you an IPv6 deployment timeline:
>>>
>>> Standards were worked out in the mid 90-ties, afterwards operating 
>>> system vendors started working on it and "real" support started 
>>> cropping up in the early to mid 2000:nds, with a large milestone 
>>> being Windows Vista in 2006, where as far as I know this was the 
>>> first widely used consumer operating system to implement this. It 
>>> then took until Windows
>>> 7 timeframe around 2010 before people started moving off of Windows 
>>> XP in ernest, and we're still seeing Windows XP in non-trivial numbers.
>>> So now in 2017 we're seeing most operating systems have 
>>> comprehensive (albeit perhaps not as well-tested as we would like) 
>>> support for IPv6, where the application ecosystem still has a way to 
>>> go. We're still working on better APIs to handle the dual-stackedness problem.
>>>
>>> Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is 
>>> something they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10.
>>> Then we have the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load 
>>> balancers, SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access 
>>> devices, core routers etc. Most of these will require a hardware 
>>> fork-lift in order to support your proposal, because they do not 
>>> forward packets in a CPU, they forward it in purpose-designed 
>>> hardware that is a lot less flexible in what they can do.
>>>
>>> So even if we all united now (which won't happen) around your IPv10 
>>> proposal, it would take 5-10 years before the first devices out on 
>>> the market had support for it. Probably 5-10 years after that before 
>>> support is widely available.
>>>
>>> IPv10 would delay and confuse deployment of something that is not IPv4.
>>> While IPv6 is not perfect, there are now hundreds of millions of 
>>> devices on the Internet with IPv6 access. It's proven to work, it's 
>>> not perfect, but we have a decently good idea what to do to make it better.
>>>
>>> IPv10 is only injecting FUD into where we need to go debate, which 
>>> is
>>> IPv6 deployment for all.
>>>
>>> Please stop.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area