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

Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> Fri, 31 March 2017 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
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 6244612943A for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Q8pN5G7L4bSm for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (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 CF269128DF6 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linne.localnet (91.248.158.223) by linfreserv (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 06B877; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:04:36 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
To: int-area@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3978103.THZhjosh1Q@linne>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.0.22 (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.14.3; i686; git-c97962a; 2016-07-14)
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB22415EF95A1233420064FC15BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D502B93A.74992%lee@asgard.org> <659D8C70-B6F9-46C7-AA9E-669C9DC8C7F4@icann.org> <AM4PR0401MB22415EF95A1233420064FC15BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Received-SPF: none (linne.localnet: linne.localnet does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=91.248.158.223; helo=linne.localnet; mechanism=default; identity=helo; receiver=linfreserv;
X-AXIGEN-SPF-Result: No records
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/_rOwIptl0_fHtxyDWr58bCe_Nmc>
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 18:04:41 -0000

Khaled,

you've already confirmed that your protocol requires changes for nearly all 
devices and we told you that it isn't possible to convince many vendor to 
support a third protocol.

We all know that IPv6 isn't perfect, but creating an additional protocol isn't 
solving any deployment problem with IPv6.

Please stop trying to convince us to further discuss your draft until there is 
a major change and a, at leat experimental, implementation from people which 
think that your idea is working.

Within the "short" time I'm reading some IETF mailing lists, I can't remember 
any draft with such strong opposition.

And I'm now stopping to discuss this draft any further until there are new 
arguments.


Am Freitag, 31. März 2017, 16:34:49 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> Terry
> 
> 
> > I feel like the discussion so far is diverging into an academic
> > free-for-all without seeing something more tangible than the current
> > state.
> 
> Ask the ietf about this, I've developed IPv10 on August, 2014 before the
> problem takes that level after the consecutive announcements of IPv4
> address space depletion.
 
> I'm expecting +10 years for my second ID (KHALED Routing Protocol "KRP") to
> be standardized.
 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Manderson [mailto:terry.manderson@icann.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:12 PM
> To: Khaled Omar; Lee Howard
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
> 
> Khaleed,
> 
> I would like to highlight a well-known idiom in the IETF, about the IETF.
> 
> "Rough consensus and running code"
> 
> The means that not only does one need to demonstrate the benefits of their
> idea in a working implementation (a protocol stack in this case), and
> really the onus is on you to have a cohort of people about you to develop
> that stack if you alone do not have the skills, but then also to gain
> consensus of the IETF as to the technology in question.
 
> I feel like the discussion so far is diverging into an academic free-for-all
> without seeing something more tangible than the current state.
 
> Cheers
> Terry
> INT Area AD.
> 
> On 1/04/2017, 2:05 AM, "Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar"
> <int-area-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
 
> 
>     > I don¹t see any evidence that you are gaining consensus. Jen¹s
>     > suggestion was very good: develop a stack and get some deployment
>     > experience to show it can work.
>     
>     There are many people who likes IPv10 and support it, also I'm not a
> software developer who works for a company developing an OS, if you don't
> believe that this idea works, you have to try it by yourself and get back
> to me with the result and what was your problem, maybe you are not good in
> writing codes or whatever.
 
>     
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Lee Howard [mailto:lee@asgard.org] 
>     Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:35 PM
>     To: Khaled Omar; Jen Linkova
>     Cc: int-area@ietf.org
>     Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
>     
>     
>     
>     On 3/31/17, 10:02 AM, "Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar"
>     <int-area-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
 
> 
>     >> So far many people mentioned to you that updating software on clients
>     >> 
>     >>
>     >>and on network devices is very expensive, complicated and slow
>     >>process.
>     >
>     >
>     >SOFTWARE UPDATES are expensive, complicated and slow process !
> 
>     
>     Yes. Years, and hundreds or thousands of hours of expensive labor.
>     See where I explained it yesterday at
>     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg05589.html
>     
>     And that¹s if we stipulate that this can be done in software, which I
> don¹t.
 
>     I don¹t see any evidence that you are gaining consensus. Jen¹s
> suggestion was very good: develop a stack and get some deployment
> experience to show it can work.
 
>     Lee
>     
>     
>     _______________________________________________
>     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