Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

>> Because you haven't convinced people of either the necessity or the feasibility of your proposal. It's clear that you're very passionate about solving the problem you see and that's good, but that's not nearly enough to convince IETF to take this on.

You think there is no problem at all to be solved?!

What about those who will have IPv6-only?! What will they do ?! Isn't this enough to convince you about the problem?

How I can convince someone with a solution who don't want to see the problem at all!!!!!

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:54 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:38 AM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Why people don't want to participate in this work?
>
Khaled,

Because you haven't convinced people of either the necessity or the feasibility of your proposal. It's clear that you're very passionate about solving the problem you see and that's good, but that's not nearly enough to convince IETF to take this on. IETF is "rough consensus and running code". You'll need to work on both of those dimesions any chance of success. Please review the comments in int-area archives from 2017, this current discussion is pretty much a rehash of the past discussions. For instance, we specifically requested that you provide code and even provided hints on how to do that, but in the intervening three years it really doesn't seem like you've made any progress in that.

Tom

> Khaled
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:33 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>; int-area 
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New 
> Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >> That way you'll discover what you have misunderstood in your communication scenarios and packet formats.
> >
> > How VPN works ? What a tunnel means ?
> >
> > Of course it works by encrypting the L3 packet header and adding a new L3 header, is there a problem with this scenario.
> >
> > IPv10 almost works like this without encryption of course and with only one header (or maybe we can add extension header if people choose that).
> >
> > I don't see where is the problem, I don't work for Cisco or Microsoft to modify the code of networking and make the header contains a mixture of both version, ask them regarding this issue and they will answer better than me.
>
> Khaled,
>
> You don't need to work for a networking company to write networking software, we live in an open source world and there are several platforms on which this work could be done such as Linux, FreeBSD, VPP, etc. However it's up to *you* to take the initiative to produce the code for your proposal; coming to IETF and expecting that a "work group" is going to code your protocol simply isn't how it works.I suggest you learn how to code on one of the platforms and write the code for your protocol yourself.
>
> Tom
>
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:03 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: int-area <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New 
> > Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Khaled Omar wrote:
> >
> > > I’m not a code developer, really we are repeating same 
> > > requirements, so what is the meaning of a work group?!!!!!
> >
> > Look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapy and craft the packets that way for your different deployment scenarios, and make diagrams/flow charts over how the information is processed by each type of node for each of your deployment scenarios.
> >
> > That way you'll discover what you have misunderstood in your communication scenarios and packet formats.
> >
> > Also include things like dns lookups for before L3 communication can even occur. Also study the POSIX socket interface and come up with the changes that need to be done there.
> >
> > After you've done all this and documented it I think people might be a lot less dismissive of your ideas.
> >
> > What you're asking for now is for people to spend time on your ideas (that basically all of us think are completely non-starters for us obvious reasons), instead I think you should put in more work to make your ideas more "baked". You'll also discover the problems with it once you start to dig deeper.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area