Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.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 CE1F93A1030; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.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 2X10vmpwPs8Z; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092067060.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.67.60]) (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 13FA53A0FD2; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=H5aG/MiZA680ij5BTTzygweoINbhpA4A6NrArjSxC1euV0UjYitNEUMsFY7zraCD12aSyUhiUs2rgKhdFit9SslZ6wcYs1T8Xv/o1/8u3lqxDkm03j9EGk3bWD7cJEWQJvNJ8H8b7siXXCr3qmBbM6G2jXokbVmDPL8cZpUro6HpJk5LT8KfGzCq41dk5P2o4YjGR0Ekbm/seJSOJ+tsHjIqMAQh0x/2mM+04Kd3jKWBZfi+6OZ5l++mpkkA3sCZ4HXJnpaSZs7MyPvnde4JXQz3PJd1JdlhzhG/knrQeZ5/yQt8NAwP2r8HYC3wPSjZGLhHNXVfk+ImJjeLVVMfgQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4W1D/1d93jkUmnh5kZ4DKU+67zIvtBuod0w6umajY60=; b=f0iBi1llOn5Uc+Q0BcdlvpygSs0tu0umSILPRbPujzeuIcJ53rSTvQUT3gK4RXOC3c1jro0NsM98WjFf+sT7P9xT6Xp+SMEcIHo2jVGNMh5smK55LMIfOLXZzS+mrIXyLettVLbERqSfhGFnMVYs+AQDoizt6YauHT9FUDNVJNJE0IdyWa4MkWoSiaTdQsJS2sGGEVkiDluhHn6xySnEZ1AcxvWejDsrexiG/n3XibGENOtXXEu6LFtgrpLv/l2khNhps66RnCr51LiTLulUXcFonkX6wMmqEo5DiQSze0TNmfNvD16SUG8BjKxYrT+Z98d/sQWAiutN+syxEcKmZQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4W1D/1d93jkUmnh5kZ4DKU+67zIvtBuod0w6umajY60=; b=Ob9ScfIEKz8UZVh51W54kzZoHTLItg691MBNL+C/utzk3dPs17QwtCGItZ/LbyqqsEOLzcJY7tRIyvPhbzF2tez/CReYqEBjHWkH3vXvvVRNmqYNwwqyPq89kCH+EP5tNObvIofly9geoCVLdwC/jY0WqqsXinjFixIVypgb/KGKC4OKO6XLdXJL1KX9G6UkOyQf8zOihLa1fMPl+c0yBhoe+4n/BwSqVl1EFe8VKgUgyQTVaEmVr9k+vnA42dLcueNddIBbP8yxm0eTxK3C9WBBbIMTRS2TSNtdKBzbMZcatoKLVWeMKbyYW+ustuGf9BvQlzIYUviUcpx1bokb1w==
Received: from HE1EUR02FT043.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e1d::42) by HE1EUR02HT145.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e1d::470) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:33:02 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:7e1d::43) by HE1EUR02FT043.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e1d::396) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:33:02 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8]) by VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3412.029; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:33:02 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
Thread-Index: AdaTZInZq6fMkJhaSOmmj7LU3urE2gABlkywAIDSzYAABsxAQAAATybAAAALXAA=
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:33:02 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1P194MB0285CA7719316374EE31ACF1AE350@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <23754dfa24fc4b27b78b5b488af482d9@huawei.com> <VI1P194MB0285FF3B3CF2A79E8E383AE4AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <33d76f27e0bd44b7aca946d7034b0b1f@huawei.com> <VI1P194MB02859DA3CB98195DA2E3E4ABAE350@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <ff4a6efdb99348b1a9756da629de6ed6@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff4a6efdb99348b1a9756da629de6ed6@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:4A979BF99687159589AD341562A44DE67478862E972A98340D70091DA4F34888; UpperCasedChecksum:B663679FF1CAE1356C7D1FA874C86F9B19296883A35F3305710B9E62EA481BDA; SizeAsReceived:7209; Count:44
x-tmn: [WBYMK61a0YGXBNkUW2nk0WnqUgg71J0g]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9d14c4f1-bbfd-4ee5-d696-08d863a24286
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1EUR02HT145:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OcvohF/vTBELai/PyQSyqJCQAkAaau2eMorXcL3kBLP20rgha1sj7j+aYgimntKBBO9pzW6FwpDRrlS308IhQ8AaVvQEvLp+XqRbjAqSgg94ZeSsjkZ3zT9icNFNc61LFjPQD5ogyhmwX6+hm2ywf95VjZdNxun+Q2+KRmPySegc9Uf7qMgWWLVGyi4C6VmkssSMlDTcpwEZDS4Bef0qyA==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: HABT9lZB9L5TK8eaksCRbAYul3r/mJj7SpZvOJcWHczX/1uE5dqVmXwg1qbImKpr9HQKjA1Ks0Q3aWet+4RNjHZ7V2wYoReGyp5IabQLrMZtDAqNWGDlZM9uN2SHCfZwXJ/Elj5pUeTXyhAhC1HDAQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HE1EUR02FT043.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9d14c4f1-bbfd-4ee5-d696-08d863a24286
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Sep 2020 11:33:02.4290 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1EUR02HT145
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/H8jv2YiZbOwNLjdVvZGAGyulghc>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:33:07 -0000

Not right, IPv6 took so "long" time so devices can migrate to, upper thing, IPv10 uses both types of communication, so it solves everything from the roots, if you will follow the draft step by step, you will find out that even with DNS it works fine.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft

Khalid,
You still avoid to answer my primary question:
> > There is a logical hole in your proposal:
> > If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to 
> > upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved.
> > Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 
> > protocols in the data plane? (second header is IPv10) It is not 
> > logical. Does not make
> sense.

If upgrade is so easy -then  we do not need any interim solution. Just IPv6. Right?

Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khaled Omar [mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com]
> Sent: 28 сентября 2020 г. 14:22
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
> 
> >> You have IPv4 address inserted into IPv6.
> 
> This is in the IP mix draft, not the IPv10 draft, IPv10 has no IPv4 
> embedded address.
> 
> Khaled Omar
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:12 AM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
> 
> Hi Khalid,
> You have avoided to answer my primary question:
> > There is a logical hole in your proposal:
> > If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to 
> > upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved.
> > Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 
> > protocols in the data plane? (second header is IPv10) It is not 
> > logical. Does not make
> sense.
> 
> You have IPv4 address inserted into IPv6.
> Believe you or not - industry does use "stateless translation" name 
> for such solutions.
> You have invented 9th version of address translation, that is not fully specified.
> I do not see advantages against RFC 6144.
> 
> Eduard
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Khaled Omar [mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com]
> > Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 21:47
> > To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> > changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
> >
> > >> If you look inside the draft - you would see that it is 
> > >> additional version of IPv6
> > Stateless translation with IPv4-embedded addresses again.
> >
> > Eduard, There are no any kind of translation used, it is just mixing 
> > the two version in the same header, one as a source the other as a
> destination.
> >
> > >> Your solution already exist. It is RFC 6144 - April 2011. Please, read this RFC.
> > It has a bit more details then yours.
> >
> > This draft uses translators, where is the statement that two 
> > versions can exist in the same header and achieve the communication?!
> >
> > >> And what you propose to do in the next 20 years when part of host 
> > >> would
> > already support IPv10, but other part does not?
> >
> > Good question, all the devices has to step by step be updated, then 
> > we can switch on a flag day to IPv10, so this will give time to 
> > developers to first write the code, then apply the code gradually on all OSs.
> >
> > >> Additionally I need to inform you that people are not satisfied 
> > >> with stateless
> > translation, because long transition needs IPv4 per every host, but
> > IPv4 is in shortage.
> >
> > We will not need more IPv4 addresses, as new hosts will be assigned
> > IPv6 addresses and still be able to communicate with the IPv4 hosts.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:22 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> > changed.... Re: IPv10 draft
> >
> > Hi all,
> > I have looked to the draft. This hurricane is a little groundless.
> >
> > Experts,
> > What Khaled was trying to invent is not a new IP protocol. It is 
> > just a mistake that it was called IPv10.
> > If you look inside the draft - you would see that it is additional 
> > version of IPv6 Stateless translation with IPv4-embedded addresses again.
> > Hence, billions of man-hours that is needed for development of new 
> > IP protocol is not needed. It is good news.
> >
> > Khaled,
> > Your solution already exist. It is RFC 6144 - April 2011. Please, 
> > read this RFC. It has a bit more details then yours.
> > Just nobody before you was so brave to propose stateless translation 
> > directly from every host in the world. Everybody else was thinking 
> > about some gateways to keep the majority of hosts intact.
> > There is a logical hole in your proposal:
> > If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to 
> > upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved.
> > Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 
> > protocols in the data plane? (second header is IPv10) It is not 
> > logical. Does not make
> sense.
> >
> > By the way, it is not possible to upgrade every host in the world 
> > out of IPv4 (nobody see money to do the job) - but it is the second 
> > problem that you would not face because of previous problem.
> >
> > And what you propose to do in the next 20 years when part of host 
> > would already support IPv10, but other part does not?
> >
> > Additionally I need to inform you that people are not satisfied with 
> > stateless translation, because long transition needs IPv4 per every 
> > host, but IPv4 is in shortage.
> > Hence, other translation technologies: 464XLAT, MAP-T/E, DS-lite, lw4o6.
> > If you trying to attack translation topic - you need to read all of 
> > these
> carefully.
> >
> > Eduard