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

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

>> - Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you
>>   basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem.
>> - IPv10 doesn't allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only
>>   host and vice versa as stated in the I-D. Hint: an IPv4-only host
>>   has got no idea what an IPv6 address is, let alone an "IPv10 address".
>> - As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed
>>   and does not work.
>> ...>> Repeating this over and over again does not work. IMHO you only 
>> can move forward with a _technically sound_ proposal, otherwise many 
>> people will regard it as waste of time.

How can IPv10 allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only host?

This is part of the update, the IPv6 only host will consider the destination (when it is an IP4 only host) as a host not in the same subnet and sent to the default gateway, then the default gateway (router) will use the appropriate routing table (which is the IPv4 routing table in this case) and route the packet until reaching to the destination ......... easy ha.

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Bless, Roland (TM) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:35 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Hi,

Am 17.09.20 um 16:13 schrieb Khaled Omar:
>>> No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your conclusion are all false.
> 
> Why it is a bad idea ?????!!!!!

Because it is contradictory in itself. Your drafts speaks of
IPv4- and IPv6-only hosts, but your solution requires them to use and implement the IPv10/IPmix format, too.

> IPv6 requires updating and migration.
> IPv10 requires only updating.

Yes, and everything: hosts and routers.
Not simpler than for IPv6.

> IPv6 took so long time.
> IPv10 will take short time.

Nope, that is a wish, since the complexity would be the same.

> IPv6 is a new address structure.
> IPv10 is a solution only.

IPV10 also defines a new address format.

> Other transitioning techniques requires so much translations and involvement of the DNS in the communication process.
> IPv10 doesn't requires neither.

Because everything is IPv10-capable...

> Other transitioning techniques requires training.
> IPv10 requires no training. 

I agree with Stephane and repeat excerpts of my message from 2017 here:
>> - Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you
>>   basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem.
>> - IPv10 doesn't allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only
>>   host and vice versa as stated in the I-D. Hint: an IPv4-only host
>>   has got no idea what an IPv6 address is, let alone an "IPv10 address".
>> - As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed
>>   and does not work.
>> ...>> Repeating this over and over again does not work. IMHO you only 
>> can move forward with a _technically sound_ proposal, otherwise many 
>> people will regard it as waste of time.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/oLszaOAMS5OgSxM0ECKwo-ClYDE/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; int-area 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Ron Bonica 
> <[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 01:58:21PM +0000,  Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote  a message of 122 lines which said:
> 
>> Most of the feedbacks I got are related to changing the draft name 
>> from IPv10 to any other name.
> 
> No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your conclusion are all false.
> 
> No need to spend meeting time on it.

Regards
 Roland