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

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
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 0947C129666 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=0.874, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.com
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 rcVTL6BUK2eD for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092065047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.65.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE44012954C for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=rdQf9lw0PDxBTdiyHwCHprRKn3uWGu6Ook3JZYVl6ts=; b=Na5nQQG9ahpILqBrZhnxz0l9e0idzw3CMdRUcNG6OYfoEti4Qz62xpYdY3XfqmJuTJv2YLx1hzlI3fHcNymI06x6YnhE6KBeA2BaF8Tv1yTNJj6HCcPTVHPH8MuV7Sj5V3G6A2umbpL9R/oUXbN2OwyJMRfE/IJFQC5S3GwL04F9/brDK4iDrorH4CUrqz45oqxtbsE+SsfzMnDhHC2/mwX5rcl9M1owtgAbQRGPvXsIDGHmJDd1fs4QfzXy3GA7DR6S7TamjoCCcNuXIj2Y2AvimMlzGxF37calBFC6TyrMkCKJKwvvm2AskUWc+xLZWsx/A4RJ0pAucPeDGFC3hQ==
Received: from HE1EUR01FT004.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.0.51) by HE1EUR01HT096.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.1.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:13:19 +0000
Received: from AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.0.59) by HE1EUR01FT004.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.1.233) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1005.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:13:19 +0000
Received: from AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.165.44.150]) by AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.165.44.150]) with mapi id 15.01.0991.023; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:13:19 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
Thread-Index: AQHSqfSos1f70z39pEiy56Z0WIwUU6Gu1o4Q
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:13:18 +0000
Message-ID: <AM4PR0401MB2241FCE296DCD88D7D065520BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <1d67d033-8a0f-c7eb-ae37-ec99f5a34660@kit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: kit.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;kit.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:F91F17276377EAB6537A1EB2C12E2F629AA14D263AD3CBF9FA948C52D2C471B1; UpperCasedChecksum:7FD55A9F4289618911C2DED2E940AD48CA10B2260996169C384C51C0653BFE27; SizeAsReceived:8273; Count:42
x-tmn: [lAUdhP/nhidRMGf5YuBj2dCPGvNBCtMV]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1EUR01HT096; 5:UUYybLffQ4DBI+tLilS0OUUWzVQuGOzLHesHlOj3016waCi5YtQDdWkGMNrdOw9XpKE1r8atvXpiaRIbSlyJF38O1qRXImmgTu+WOHr6XLz6ziZDHPILvAAuxN2PN/GbkcWG6eisUN059aV8+Ob2/A==; 24:2hZO7QNPKFcSSillDlOAG9cEpKW6a1kT16sgOXGJXOJv0ugpSFgsftVSLn7aRQZikLfz6tmM7T9ps64XKKqI7FVmJN0xXICSCscrkR7Ort4=; 7:YOP6X4CTH3EHPHJSOvsjRYqbJUjeCxYwLm+c/Ku4qD6ZFj9u5ywID4xRgIV8f7pE2fg9BuReicVr4cyreF6nqgKGTy538MEy6rdOtQvQhEZ7GDgEW2PZCCmQ4tbirTCSeg48Oq/xAz3j0s9iJSuHzdc3IUFgFUEPyz2VzPunjlfSKYQDtH2hVI5dLwyOdRF+T+ctDJE/C2SXX8QNZhM9fRW9f2zt6WhH0odt2QTTx7ix9ulm8M2dHDhkV+vRIr9tqj6NzADVqDOJ5+3JdDzsBV2dEHJmilGmu1p/kt/NkL2l75QWVVqbxqJs2XLNmotb
x-incomingheadercount: 42
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1EUR01HT096; H:AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c4476ed2-1c51-4fb7-3254-08d4782f517e
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045); SRVR:HE1EUR01HT096;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:HE1EUR01HT096; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1EUR01HT096;
x-forefront-prvs: 02638D901B
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Mar 2017 12:13:18.9810 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1EUR01HT096
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/_wo_8vhHqMQ-FQkFb8pHVIHiwCQ>
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 12:13:24 -0000

> 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 !

> Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is something they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10. Then we have the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load balancers, SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access devices, core routers etc.

Please, let's not be against ourselves, all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task, OSs will not require support for a new IP version like IPv6, they will just be enabled to support the encapsulation of both version on the same L3 packet header.

Also, networking devices will be upgraded to understand the new IPv10 packet, I said earlier I don't mind If the process will take some time but we should eventually reach consensus, I shouldn't list all devices that need to support IPv10, simply, anything will process a L3 packet, should understand that the IPv10 packet can contain a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bless, Roland (TM)
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:51 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Hi Mikael,

thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!

Regards,
 Roland

Am 31.03.2017 um 08:17 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar wrote:
> 
>> You can read the IPv10 I-D again and all your concerns will be 
>> obvious, I don't mind if you have already a series of new questions 
>> that will add a new value to the discussion but the time to deploy
>> IPv10 is an important factor.
>>
>> We need consensus after understanding how IPv10 works and how it will 
>> be deployed.
> 
> As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been 
> interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000.
> 
> Let me give you an IPv6 deployment timeline:
> 
> Standards were worked out in the mid 90-ties, afterwards operating 
> system vendors started working on it and "real" support started 
> cropping up in the early to mid 2000:nds, with a large milestone being 
> Windows Vista in 2006, where as far as I know this was the first 
> widely used consumer operating system to implement this. It then took 
> until Windows
> 7 timeframe around 2010 before people started moving off of Windows XP 
> in ernest, and we're still seeing Windows XP in non-trivial numbers. 
> So now in 2017 we're seeing most operating systems have comprehensive 
> (albeit perhaps not as well-tested as we would like) support for IPv6, 
> where the application ecosystem still has a way to go. We're still 
> working on better APIs to handle the dual-stackedness problem.
> 
> Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is 
> something they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10.
> Then we have the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load 
> balancers, SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access devices, 
> core routers etc. Most of these will require a hardware fork-lift in 
> order to support your proposal, because they do not forward packets in 
> a CPU, they forward it in purpose-designed hardware that is a lot less 
> flexible in what they can do.
> 
> So even if we all united now (which won't happen) around your IPv10 
> proposal, it would take 5-10 years before the first devices out on the 
> market had support for it. Probably 5-10 years after that before 
> support is widely available.
> 
> IPv10 would delay and confuse deployment of something that is not IPv4.
> While IPv6 is not perfect, there are now hundreds of millions of 
> devices on the Internet with IPv6 access. It's proven to work, it's 
> not perfect, but we have a decently good idea what to do to make it better.
> 
> IPv10 is only injecting FUD into where we need to go debate, which is
> IPv6 deployment for all.
> 
> Please stop.

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area