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

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

I forgot to tell you that I was waiting for a replacement solution for 3 years but after a short time I found IPv10 is the best.

Best Regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled Omar 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:26 PM
To: 'Bless, Roland (TM)'
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Hi Roland,

This way too is not working, keeping repeating same answers to the same questions is ridiculous.

 > Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you
  basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem.

IPv10 does not depends on clients (ISPs or Enterprises) like IPv6 migration process, it depends on software modification on all hosts' OSs and routers' OSs to be able to encapsulate both IP version on the same IP header.

> IPv10 doesn't allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only
  host and vice versa as stated in the I-D. Hint: an IPv4-only host
  has got no idea what an IPv6 address is, let alone an "IPv10 address".

Think about a host treats a different version destination as a host in a different subnet, it will send the packet to the gateway, the gateway (router) will check the destination packet, and based on its version (whether it is an IPv4 packet or and IPv6 packet) it will checks its IP routing table (whether the IPv4 routing or the IPv6 routing table respectively) to make a routing decision, and each router on the road to the destination will do the same till reaching the destination. 

> As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed
  and does not work.

Please speak with your own tongue, others who stated that had no full information about how IPv10 works, later they believed it is the best solution for IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence until reaching a full migration to IPv6.

> Repeating this over and over again does not work. IMHO you only can move forward with a _technically sound_ proposal, otherwise many people will regard it as waste of time.

Simply, if IPv10 is not of your interest, peacefully don't participate in the discussion, as I stated on my proposal, the internet will be divided into two divisions, and that will not be good for all of us when some new users will be assigned (or already assigned) IPv6 only addresses and has no access to all internet resources or a limited access(Google and Facebook).

> There are various WGs in the IETF that try to work towards better solutions. You may not like them, but they are at least rough community consensus.

Science doesn't understand consensus, science understands ideas, better ideas and the best idea, that can technically deployed easily and in a short time, I can make a solution like IPv6 and think about forcing people to migrate, but this will not work practically in a short time, and this is what we are experiencing, also, thinking about a solution that requires giving training everywhere to let people deploy it is not a good solution, because still depends on clients (users), but to make a solution that depends on a few number of companies developing networking OSs and can be deployed in a short time with no interventions of a helping technology (like protocol translation or asking DNS for more efforts).

Eventually, IMHO, you will never reach a full consensus by all IETF members, so it is the time for the responsible ADs and Chairs with some help from interested participants to make a good impact for all.

Best regards,

Khaled Omar 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bless, Roland (TM) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:03 PM
To: Khaled Omar; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Dear Omar,

Am 30.03.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> I think all of you now know about IPv10 and what is the problem and 
> how
> IPv10 can solve it and how it can be deployed in a short time.

- Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you
  basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem.
- IPv10 doesn't allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only
  host and vice versa as stated in the I-D. Hint: an IPv4-only host
  has got no idea what an IPv6 address is, let alone an "IPv10 address".
- As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed
  and does not work.

> You can ask any question and I'll do my best to give you answers to 
> make it clear for everyone so the IPv10 I-D can go forward through the 
> IETF standardization process and be published.

Repeating this over and over again does not work. IMHO you only can move forward with a _technically sound_ proposal, otherwise many people will regard it as waste of time.

> If there is a better solution for this problem I can participate 
> freely on its discussion.

There are various WGs in the IETF that try to work towards better solutions. You may not like them, but they are at least rough community consensus.

Best,
 Roland