Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
I have looked to the draft. This hurricane is a little groundless.

Experts,
What Khaled was trying to invent is not a new IP protocol. It is just a mistake that it was called IPv10.
If you look inside the draft - you would see that it is additional version of IPv6 Stateless translation with IPv4-embedded addresses again.
Hence, billions of man-hours that is needed for development of new IP protocol is not needed. It is good news.

Khaled,
Your solution already exist. It is RFC 6144 - April 2011. Please, read this RFC. It has a bit more details then yours.
Just nobody before you was so brave to propose stateless translation directly from every host in the world. Everybody else was thinking about some gateways to keep the majority of hosts intact.
There is a logical hole in your proposal:
If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved.
Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 protocols in the data plane? (second header is IPv10)
It is not logical. Does not make sense.

By the way, it is not possible to upgrade every host in the world out of IPv4 (nobody see money to do the job) - but it is the second problem that you would not face because of previous problem.

And what you propose to do in the next 20 years when part of host would already support IPv10, but other part does not?

Additionally I need to inform you that people are not satisfied with stateless translation, because long transition needs IPv4 per every host, but IPv4 is in shortage.
Hence, other translation technologies: 464XLAT, MAP-T/E, DS-lite, lw4o6.
If you trying to attack translation topic - you need to read all of these carefully.

Eduard