IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
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 825213A0E43; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.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 kFAFnctcND7N; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR05-DB8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db8eur05olkn2078.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.89.78]) (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 415E13A0CB2; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=IeTs+Jm78JnHvZoOub7rAfxUSZvjIvN6hKuBpdPPUsXG9Xj05wwKjvw8vGkU4jlS3VKo+wwc1LaTAr1xoGovX0bECKs8kxkqJJ+xcNNnnpjhWYlKJgiO/nm6lv4dQ7ISzL91wjFSSccmJAYMtDNmclV1ZdHvsGebs1dWwegBUTq+8O8aerIVzOxR6f8kDvDokqsW5J94h9V6RsIhdH8d31GzmqFvMdKHJwVzImYxH0KYPbIAbIlEzBhWgTHYiNmlztMnpfwwtMaabhxnEu3HvYrNAylkI5gq+Aom45jWGWtOhRbogoxAWUrnisPlvKXycUQowpZoNO3Zp3Dhc/82lQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IPsxv7DOsTQBP5C4GfD96RMbaTm5UubfJBFJxgdZN0k=; b=gcs2qkFnuMawS6n3sS1yyGvtFw6auyYP/4NhmqZsGS3Xbjl0OMid0KSHeiIsDyb5wD2Z4GKbQC/L/V7f1hv7mTqPu/1EdPMhnDT2UgNfrzd5fSNsvNn55yezg1PeAvEWik0mdyHjpZDNDG3jbQ1Tqk3jN8pT9hJ57PrTV7wQ3rozX9Emmb8sXhuDxz7PlDLJhFLaf1MffAG30+gd0Wd/zmFxyeKwlqRCw0ZKkYJdCZ9LlQHgOcGk27DlaoTSodww+/sfC4aO7akGW6dk4g4eWZen1piydOoam8elCSY7FQ5JM5STeXMHRjOGGgkelNRem8bUL0tEQXIds3MFcgFzkw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IPsxv7DOsTQBP5C4GfD96RMbaTm5UubfJBFJxgdZN0k=; b=uh9MDO5MbY77Jr3hZ/WhXIvDJBXxWbDFtjNXvAd8YfRa88++UaZa3kQYsQ8nJ3kpAf60/2fy9dkYT1MpKQauB2eQIDA4Klm1GCd4sz1/zDpj8NCeM3n9gdYFzaXGqvjxCBGmGhXg6mRa8zwwlEtRANbNXcrq+OU2TH5+Z4adX0llRd18HBG//PrlkNtg7umJgqu9MljhQH+PljLxRpiwrmN4UgNQ74G8kyhonlHul4Rme7XQknZLi2sKLlG8YGrmluGRdXpaoAB97SRtevltqsA2lxZn63AiZ5lJX8L7zwlVzYNzsj3nT24OD9FoesGP4sD1lCQgUv/zLCl+AEu9yA==
Received: from VI1EUR05FT007.eop-eur05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc12::4a) by VI1EUR05HT071.eop-eur05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc12::374) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:41:10 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:fc12::4d) by VI1EUR05FT007.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc12::84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:41:10 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8]) by VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3412.024; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:41:10 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
Thread-Index: AQHWk0no9nKOGnFBl0aw69jMc3RxgQ==
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:41:10 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1P194MB0285B456A9A54CC51AD30388AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <VI1P194MB0285F47132384AC7C0D8A8DCAE3C0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <F2516A37-06B1-44FC-850F-307114B7D6A5@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285B8AE9ACE88D1AF051ADAAE3A0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <601FB9F8-DB83-4654-B652-BE07C49F7918@gmail.com> <5ab64d0ebef1402d8bf912b937d7c489@huawei.com> <VI1P194MB02850EAA7D945B9163C84399AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009251436100.20021@uplift.swm.pp.se> <VI1P194MB028569F3A119BF2B2F59B8BBAE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d629ce71-e55b-19d4-aed3-b4867871d754@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <d629ce71-e55b-19d4-aed3-b4867871d754@kit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:05733360F4FD032BFB189ED9FE2490F15913E44473D67A9AFF5FC1E64A2E0C1D; UpperCasedChecksum:C39FE3819984064E96A2950903C69DDF9827EE2C914E77DD342383257FCE67BB; SizeAsReceived:7621; Count:44
x-tmn: [w5vHV97w4JHgm1Hk6k7Tr8NR+4unP3Mf]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ab11a6c8-f176-4d3d-65f8-08d861610b3f
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1EUR05HT071:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: b2VclLoHno1+HBhMPjGn4BBNgHweXLIllQu8ShOGhqS/NJ+qReGQtElzlDxmVOqkVUJ6N98X/Xku92Tz+DwpAX6ep6nlHF606WS22KiNyXVJOBuy9c9jZPnhWW+o+E3Yn2CmAVsnr6ffBmEpKjjsMEfTDGgKIsm/MA5EboALe/CxrTbfTqjiTtvn+WsSCeKBGPejGfkv9rpVcjHaAHcUcw==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: SpyBmC1WTlJfbeYdKCovpl6E2zQYkLT3iUG7GxbuNqd8ia4HIA0hskMGNphmDyB/YfqkRNAxoXHHCDzSOVslCMSXb2TQEVQ+uW0oX2N61RHs0lm+N7CY+VzMoS3dgrTEDYlztvxR5pMMCVJq6/s79Q==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: VI1EUR05FT007.eop-eur05.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ab11a6c8-f176-4d3d-65f8-08d861610b3f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Sep 2020 14:41:10.0501 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1EUR05HT071
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/R5orDqvXgvRt24nRLp71hXY1HFs>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:41:16 -0000

Roland, the sending host will encapsulate an extension header with two different IP versions, where is the contradiction here? I don't see it.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Bless, Roland (TM) <roland.bless@kit.edu> 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>; Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Hi Khaled,

Am 25.09.20 um 15:04 schrieb Khaled Omar:
>>> You don't even have running code to be able to verify that your proposal actually works (it doesn't).
> 
> Do you have a running code to state this?

How should one create running code out of a flawed specification?
The following picture from your draft already shows that it definitely cannot work, thus no code needed:
an IPv4-_only_ host by definition does NOT support IPv10 and thus CANNOT send any IPv10 tunnel packets. Same for an IPv6-_only_ host.

IPv10 Host                                         IPv10 Host
    PC-1                                                PC-2
   +----+                                              +----+
   |    |                                              |    |
   |    |                                              |    |
   +----+                                              +----+
  /    /   <--------------------------------------->  /    /
 +----+              IPv10 Header (Tunnel)           +----+
                              (3)
IPv4-Only Host                                    IPv6-Only Host

Do you see the contradiction here?

Roland

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session 
> Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> 
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, Khaled Omar wrote:
> 
>> That’s why looking into the transitions solutions became a mandatory 
>> or a peaceful solution such as IPv10 that will allow both version to 
>> coexist and communicate until the full migration.
> 
> No, any change now just resets the clock and postpones the transition by another 20 years.
> 
> Meaningful support for IPv6 has been available in end-devices since 
> the
> 2006-2008 timeframe when Windows Vista was released and around the same timeframe other end-user operating systems gained support as well.
> 
> We're now in 2020 in a situation where basically every end user device 
> in use has IPv6 support, even laggards like Smart TVs have started to 
> gain
> IPv6 support. Printers have had IPv6 support for 10+ years.
> 
> For your proposal, you have zero running code and thus zero devices supporting your proposal.
> 
> You keep making these statements that upgrades are easy. They are not. 
> Ecosystems take a long time to build. You don't even have running code to be able to verify that your proposal actually works (it doesn't).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email