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

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

As I'm here on the list discussing it, we should come to a final conclusion and start working on making it official, just to have a clear mind with good intention and everything will be fine.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 28 сентября 2020 г. 14:22
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:12 AM
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 21:47
> > To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> > 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 <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:22 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> > 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