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

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 20:44 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 1A6B712944A for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:44:08 -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 x-qD7Snw1eiX for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092064104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.64.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7821C12702E for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:44:05 -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=yAv+hfMEiWpoKlmMwEs+MQJW57N5ZszybXps8T+Unpo=; b=hLUA1MR1ONvY+vfVfbW51LUK6JA1pFttKjBM8Gv2pEV+wUgB6vrQKBtDmDTQAld9/wUAssyzvhZFWrW48YuJTZOXCgHvuP9I1zY5HASZKNrLi1Z3WLw+LNGt9ticYypjhy8FF5KoT5JzJgnbonmqw15T/vVk/wP7E+vbjrETW5qUuVPfy03rIGeMr/UJeZdq9USj9pFnUO0CxcLuD9frKP8XlHDU7+zEjXtoWb5bKuWBp6z4FFZV1MrkP4jlPLOGXu5vBNKgnNviCWaBVXEWho85df/RVriqgo3gjbS6T3nAIoP6G5kEtH4coh8BJke62/Ggl780gOXi840zG0cewg==
Received: from DB5EUR01FT049.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.4.55) by DB5EUR01HT209.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.5.152) 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 20:44:03 +0000
Received: from DB6PR0401MB2248.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.4.59) by DB5EUR01FT049.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.5.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1005.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:44:03 +0000
Received: from DB6PR0401MB2248.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.54.26]) by DB6PR0401MB2248.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.54.26]) with mapi id 15.01.1005.014; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:44:03 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
To: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
Thread-Index: AQHSqfSos1f70z39pEiy56Z0WIwUU6Gu1o4QgAApDICAAADwEIAABe2AgAAEzBCAAAmagIAACGdAgAAB94CAAATzUIAAGm+AgAApjTA=
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:44:03 +0000
Message-ID: <DB6PR0401MB224803DC5A7BEAAFF04D4F7EBD370@DB6PR0401MB2248.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D502B93A.74992%lee@asgard.org> <659D8C70-B6F9-46C7-AA9E-669C9DC8C7F4@icann.org> <AM4PR0401MB22415EF95A1233420064FC15BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <3978103.THZhjosh1Q@linne>
In-Reply-To: <3978103.THZhjosh1Q@linne>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: linfre.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;linfre.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:6939440CDB77B7B99693711D97AF3F70783780B6E4BE3F8BF88DE4A939C38380; UpperCasedChecksum:1B84651DD2E19B31910F66FE6BBAE58D3880C39B5A644D5A48ECF101DF0E4C26; SizeAsReceived:8293; Count:42
x-tmn: [Nb+KRsAmEE4Snf04mhOIH0HfVoyPkZXk]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5EUR01HT209; 5:+Ql0kx3BPtDoqpLu01mf4Lw6UqknW4Q+qvPp7PFCmNgG7m/uwixC/c8KWgYHl5ldiQ0xeEKJzb+jPmk8Xav8v9WNcyouWQpi/MQEyMQjq/NvSIk5eUASvwEqBPjFp2WexhPiJzBxEy2hn84aT/lSSA==; 24:okFH+rBRJJbki8v8QbNcoaMyu/u0sUrBp+U7DQiDNA2bmoMGJktFBixGFeqYlA0scOWmMInR4INe1bKAyuD3vZkWGY9WuwIq0OYLCnCrRHA=; 7:6N3wcqPbt58z5ardhVuIgWX1hAFQrj9IbXlPNBGoem8vJE7ZsWxUsY/Jyv7fhmsfCVxZJ/QkCUcN9PA3lxMkYGE5O97OVPu9bT16/bI+WOE1xDcbTgRSrGZd9G4N7Oi9rHr/nuj326xg5u2kseRpX3r1nHrZEG5R8heWlxVotttmuhqexOFHO0wDNHQ8Ruez8JfZvgWde9aw7gDyDeg4dZzRLF66BA0TF1nbr47ID4tJ9XMXNmjrIqoPVInsAYZRCMje0w3yX2Xpd4acVw1O6mXugh+aR3PClv6nzHwTGbVoiMTb9erNXBcMHusyB0Sl
x-incomingheadercount: 42
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5EUR01HT209; H:DB6PR0401MB2248.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 65b4f6e2-c541-4e02-e4a9-08d47876aae0
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045); SRVR:DB5EUR01HT209;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:DB5EUR01HT209; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB5EUR01HT209;
x-forefront-prvs: 02638D901B
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Mar 2017 20:44:03.3240 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5EUR01HT209
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/dfYxDEKF7jxiQlatt7kNEjaQ9Qg>
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 20:44:08 -0000

Karsten,

> 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.

If you mean by Vendors the few number to technology companies, then be sure that this small "update" will be easy for them to deploy based on how they work, IPv10 is not considered as a 3rd protocol, it is as mentioned in the I-D a solution, we will still have only IPv4 and IPv6, they will not disappear and no more protocol will be added to them.

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

IPv10 will solve the problem of IPv6 lack of deployment globally, because IPv10 will enable all Internet connected hosts from different version to be able to communicate, and let the migration process takes its time, once full migration will occur, forget about IPv10, the whole Internet will be IPv6 networks, but now, IPv10 will avoid the division of the Internet into two parts.

> 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.

I'm not trying to convince all of you, who is seriously interested and understand the added value simply can participate, Internet is a global network that all are using, don't tell me that the division will occur for a specific people and not the others, it is a global problem that should be solved for all, if you don't care about the solution, simply don't participate, no one will force you to do something that you don't want to do.

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

You are free to do what you want, but don't make a late decision of participation before the I-D will be published, because you will not be welcomed in that late time, so make up your decision now and your decision is welcome regardless what it is.



-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:karsten_thomann@linfre.de] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:05 PM
To: int-area@ietf.org
Cc: Khaled Omar
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

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