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

Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> Thu, 30 March 2017 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 7978F1293EE for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 DDmlmMvIW3rG for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 0BD131294AE for <Int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ctifb-0005Ry-7W; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:35:55 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAFB4B0039A; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:35:54 +0200 (CEST)
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <9c0d9f36-7a07-f9a0-c8b9-75ea5bcb7cf2@kit.edu> <AM4PR0401MB224169B5386E394CDB938A2EBD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Cc: Int-area@ietf.org
Message-ID: <0102a3b9-2774-201a-d1d6-e57a03fa093d@kit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:35:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB224169B5386E394CDB938A2EBD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1490913355.
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/oLszaOAMS5OgSxM0ECKwo-ClYDE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:36:01 -0000

Hi Khaled,

see comments inline.

On 30.03.2017 at 17:25 Khaled Omar wrote:
> This way too is not working, keeping repeating same answers to the
> same questions is ridiculous.

Since your proposal hasn't changed, I can only give the same answers to
the same questions...

>> Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems,
>> you
> basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem.
> 
> IPv10 does not depends on clients (ISPs or Enterprises) like IPv6
> migration process, it depends on software modification on all hosts'
> OSs and routers' OSs to be able to encapsulate both IP version on the
> same IP header.

How is this different from IPv6? Moreover, for high speed routers,
firewalls
and so on, IPv6 also required new hardware (so will "IPv10"), thus a
router OS update isn't enough in this case.

>> 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".

> Think about a host treats a different version destination as a host
> in a different subnet, it will send the packet to the gateway, the
> gateway (router) will check the destination packet, and based on its
> version (whether it is an IPv4 packet or and IPv6 packet) it will
> checks its IP routing table (whether the IPv4 routing or the IPv6
> routing table respectively) to make a routing decision, and each
> router on the road to the destination will do the same till reaching
> the destination.

This isn't the problem I was referring to. An IPv4-only host cannot
simply use an IPv6/IPv10 address as destination address since it doesn't
have any notion of such addresses.

>> As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed
> and does not work.
> 
> Please speak with your own tongue, others who stated that had no full
> information about how IPv10 works, later they believed it is the best
> solution for IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence until reaching a full
> migration to IPv6.

I already spoke out for myself
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zyoQNbqFLFP_dgXyBKbnWyI5I3U),
but several others seemed to have found the same issues, just reread the
thread.

>> 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.
> 
> Simply, if IPv10 is not of your interest, peacefully don't
> participate in the discussion, as I stated on my proposal, the

Sorry, I tried to help politely - but if you prefer to dismiss any well
intended advice and are not open to criticism of your idea, I better
stop now.

> internet will be divided into two divisions, and that will not be
> good for all of us when some new users will be assigned (or already
> assigned) IPv6 only addresses and has no access to all internet
> resources or a limited access(Google and Facebook).
> 
>> There are various WGs in the IETF that try to work towards better
>> solutions. You may not like them, but they are at least rough
>> community consensus.
> 
> Science doesn't understand consensus, science understands ideas,
> better ideas and the best idea, that can technically deployed easily

But science is based on discussion, facts, experiments and proofs.

> and in a short time, I can make a solution like IPv6 and think about
> forcing people to migrate, but this will not work practically in a
> short time, and this is what we are experiencing, also, thinking
> about a solution that requires giving training everywhere to let
> people deploy it is not a good solution, because still depends on
> clients (users), but to make a solution that depends on a few number
> of companies developing networking OSs and can be deployed in a short
> time with no interventions of a helping technology (like protocol
> translation or asking DNS for more efforts).

I still don't see why you wouldn't have exactly the same problems
for IPv10.

> Eventually, IMHO, you will never reach a full consensus by all IETF
> members, so it is the time for the responsible ADs and Chairs with
> some help from interested participants to make a good impact for
> all.

Yes, full consensus isn't required in the IETF, rough consensus
suffices. If there is enough interest in the IETF, you'll get a working
group to move this forward.

Best regards,
 Roland

> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Bless, Roland (TM)
> [mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:03 PM 
> To: Khaled Omar; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing
> IPv10 I-D discussion.
> 
> Dear Omar,
> 
> Am 30.03.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Khaled Omar:
>> I think all of you now know about IPv10 and what is the problem and
>>  how IPv10 can solve it and how it can be deployed in a short
>> time.
> 
> - 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.
> 
>> You can ask any question and I'll do my best to give you answers to
>>  make it clear for everyone so the IPv10 I-D can go forward through
>> the IETF standardization process and be published.
> 
> 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.
> 
>> If there is a better solution for this problem I can participate 
>> freely on its discussion.
> 
> There are various WGs in the IETF that try to work towards better
> solutions. You may not like them, but they are at least rough
> community consensus.
> 
> Best, Roland
>