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

I concur with Nick Hilliard's comments on the v6ops thread: I really think
you should have a sample implementation.  A github repo with Linux kernel
patches and some client and server apps that actually cause IPv10 packets
to be sent on the wire would be a good starting point.  Patches for
tcpdump/wireshark to parse IPv10 would also be good.

Without the lessons learned from a working implementation it's not clear to
me that this conversation can meaningfully advance.  Even during IPng days,
I believe, there was some BSD exploratory work:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1682 .

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:13 AM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
wrote:

> >> 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 ?????!!!!!
>
> IPv6 requires updating and migration.
> IPv10 requires only updating.
>
> IPv6 took so long time.
> IPv10 will take short time.
>
> IPv6 is a new address structure.
> IPv10 is a solution only.
>
> Other transitioning techniques requires so much translations and
> involvement of the DNS in the communication process.
> IPv10 doesn't requires neither.
>
> Other transitioning techniques requires training.
> IPv10 requires no training.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>;
> intarea-chairs@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> 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 <
> eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

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