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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 31 March 2017 14:30 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 6F84512986E for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:30:43 -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 VhBeSBVixLEG for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:30:41 -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 1B1571296B7 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A293AA4; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:30:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1490970637; bh=ZQklqCZzd/OX6f58nESvgth+Uyl3vq7F7w6mEDfI9B8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lKifd4tBy3/HZIzHMvKzYIExZD4KPuwUUtqqNjI9+lt6eqLeRNTH4tGCGad2i60z/ oX2ZFNMGoDeOjXrfdU1QVcKiPMBGdlQ6SZrEjuAF+w+7YDFvsYZKZch4+DocNqABBL hfe+uC6Jcm7pvcv4FrmDJ+DxilJlkT9d5bQCPTek=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0723A3; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:30:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:30:37 +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: <AM4PR0401MB2241FCE296DCD88D7D065520BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703311627530.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
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/QxzfFvnUbO5jZ9ebAWC5G60ENx8>
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 14:30:43 -0000

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar 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 !

Because your ideas could possibly have been included in IPv6 and we would 
have had support for it by now. Now you're 20 years too late, and your 
energy would be better spent trying to make IPv6 more deployable without 
changing the on-wire packet format.

You're grossly underestimating the effort and time to get devices into the 
field to properly support a new packet format.

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