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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 1ACD1129495 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Fn9tTnic4PYq for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (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 265B5129471 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r45so66322785qte.3 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=46R55/q9/AwGWa/D6kGItPliy6RQKLkl5t9OOTSw0fs=; b=1oDxSj06n0+b7pexjHHkuX0jlmY8JOSk3CzMY5pdJEIOgoJXk5inYiTBtvJZ5FVLE7 cylSDI6r78+wZdO229Y4/vHGv3A+CVgcsb/DRcKROSS/DLRhZDzSriYGKu2O3q4K8U9u SUoOaSWoO41QXXw3Gz+1Y6+Vc53HxsU3TVfnDLV/FuySIcBOb0kDcR0mHZgjWJYfIE/6 +L8fGJYBojOHnqSP/xTkT5MK+YjiMFiUPBcIhF0jmG4iKN3aURFC4yq1uLV/26wT9Xe5 phJmt2rjh4hIlWi7HMcLp7uEwsdLTJI4uJLuUPwFeJZWJS/VGzp+ZR0ApWxgejZLa/yP AMDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=46R55/q9/AwGWa/D6kGItPliy6RQKLkl5t9OOTSw0fs=; b=BgHE/ZCqzDUcY4kcX82BqMNpWRa/YDOA4IrRiAOuUlPTGqzw2BJi8rKM4GAb8cS4vg DuBDUa6KJl5x3rqhpPLvq17ZB6E+Y6vOKQrdNjwq4dE1LSNv59HpLSpnHFTs2WfGdNEO da85cYQ0TYMA2rKjYgKFzfYSJRrFWEo1FH+KQXOlNJXN5m/FJoGrnhw3/HcBKX30vQmg mRVzhTgJSFwAhHiEdPl4BSC9GXCJE0UtRBhG0cQoA1DvIo9CWmT2htC+SPqy02nhQCMe +iO+X/+b4iSXq1L0WJ9ZUOe0UBuxguNTY+1a0Th8xnoGlyzRLmGb4txw7d+L3H4Un8Uf DzDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H093FWgSc16VFb3e1akSYSW7TJXfdKaQ92yhK9J0wbV+AUWacr6eIl7Xumgh+kQGFUN7PWX0zJsZ5O8dw==
X-Received: by 10.200.38.3 with SMTP id u3mr3042433qtu.203.1490969948158; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.94.113 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241FCE296DCD88D7D065520BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D502B93A.74992%lee@asgard.org> <AM4PR0401MB224189BDD22CD327CF280AA3BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703310806130.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1d67d033-8a0f-c7eb-ae37-ec99f5a34660@kit.edu> <AM4PR0401MB2241FCE296DCD88D7D065520BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:19:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S35umePtAb-noP_CiXOh9Kf8j00oCVPSevci6EE9fyxTqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Jo4ih34Z8-cd2otyPgNiRg48MYk>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:19:18 -0000

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> 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:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] 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
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area