Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-omar-ipv10-01

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 02 April 2017 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3391126D05 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 sWyAEh_2bF4D for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 134FC127097 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8EACDA2; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1491113420; bh=wi38ZnaXweugj02nFQReiENwX6OpbMwxGz7+XdPKoHg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XRPq16N897/p6h2zP2L4QQvajbjaCcdjDqXmJ1pfAOq5jPDY4M3jWL2dxjajyvH+r dZIz3YrXRw9KxaNO51NC3HzgwcawFGgSSUK1krwb+tKEWeaDD9aLtYRS902Nk380CI FwlnMVxCByBBMqBARebkatKBEm0QNHd2Q/5J3xUU=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C29088; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241CF29FE45A94284D466A2BD090@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704020758490.27978@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <68d4f945-8ece-45b0-ed4b-51847720740f@huitema.net> <AM4PR0401MB2241CF29FE45A94284D466A2BD090@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/1hu0UmC68ESPVRtD9l7OO8Ndt-8>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-omar-ipv10-01
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:10:27 -0000

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Khaled Omar wrote:

> What about the IPv6 migration? ... it requested the whole world to 
> change their existing network to another version, with a new address 
> structure, what this hard work will bring for those poor people after 
> this migration? ... any solution will request modification, and the more 
> applicable modification makes a better solution, updating all existing 
> nodes is not a hard request, at least, the poor people will not get 
> involved in solving a problem that they never did.

Khaled, I admire your energy. I just wish you would direct it in a more 
productive direction. Implementing a new on-wire format is a 10-20 year 
process in todays Internet with many many billions of hosts and network 
devices.

Christian made some interesting observations, and I think you should read 
his email again. The interesting point he made was that your proposal 
basically uses the IPv6 on-wire format. This means that if re-think your 
solution to instead work within the IPv6 packet format (because it's by 
now a lot easier to IPv6 enable the rest of the hosts on the Internet, 
than it is to IPv10-enable all the hosts).

The biggest problem is that we have IPv4-only hosts on IPv4-only Internet 
access. This is the real problem. If they can be upgraded to IPv10, they 
can be upgraded to IPv6, solving the problem with a solution that is 20 
years old, instead of one that is currently on the drawing board (IPv10). 
But now, if they can't and they need to interoperate, then we need to use 
IPv4<->IPv6 translation mechanism. There are numerous of these in the 
IETF. If you have an idea how to do that which is better than what has 
already been proposed, then I (and most likely others) are very interested 
in hearing about it.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se