Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that shows the deployment so I can believe.

Khaled Omar

From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 AM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Boy. If “millions and billions” isn’t wide deployment, maybe I need to go back to grammar school.
Sent from my iPad


On Sep 19, 2020, at 4:18 PM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

But none of these transitioning solutions are widely deployed, maybe it is IPv10 time ;-)

Khaled Omar

From: Erik Kline <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:05 AM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]<mailto:evyncke=[e-mail]>>; int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

As noted before: RFCs 6052, 6146, 6147, 6877, 7915, and others comprise the solution deployed to literally hundreds of millions if not billions of mobile devices and numerous access networks worldwide.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:24 AM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved?

Network engineers everywhere, they are waiting for the announcement of an official robust solution to the depletion of the IPv4 address space and the division that occurs recently on the Internet.

People read the draft and many wrote about it because the idea is simple and requires no intervention from their side, that’s why I ask the IETF to take the draft seriously and put personal benefits aside for now, as LATER everything will back to normal, believe me, all are in need for this.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:24 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Roland Bless <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)



Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, many people support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part of it.

This statement has me a little confused. I see a lot of commentary, but I don’t see people commenting along those lines. I frankly see commentary similar to what I sent you declining a v6ops slot,

Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved?
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area