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

Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.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 4B1C01299D5 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 29EUDOxtOH9l for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97FFF1299D4 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id l43so70868459wre.1 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFfRwnbpUfbXPVqkVwo/xCEsQiGs5SbGu2QhiKD4CaI=; b=A02U80s9jkDyNzCnuSAwUfP1w/XKAnOIHO9DGKxU6RRNP+FEfKNmf/aUcRm1eM3/pU qq11Obx25eI2WtWihy9RHkfhKiJG6cG0vrWkQSt9znSB+p0fHz7uxC4lbEBVQNv/S3Hp TeHSp/7AT/hIewd7cK0vKE3UdHTmTK7WhKK/HuqS9RzDD8J49r9qQEgO0TINMCiV75Ql CxdE8CmGYEuQGaPwMSG/1HeU4gD/iZ+zk6E3TSTQNqTP2huOS8G+IXvLxVb/e0MZurYM ++f8VImJ3Voo1gtpKd7BRwQczUGb1mXy/hFrOfVIIl49pYNLYSAdue1a54LYG+RLIgGW lBrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFfRwnbpUfbXPVqkVwo/xCEsQiGs5SbGu2QhiKD4CaI=; b=FXjsXqQm0EKoo4pqNNGa6s6edBPDoEEWU8gHuaD/pxYBu6aWWP0OHvJ787IPzLh3Ez ISqUadm6+h9VRD+Jv1OkcVmoDn+lWghNGBz2kI32ftSY7AVk2RbPADWtE/1ofnShSgVx e53ZDtO87SCui34VRG28AsEcjfyID1Fqa/d9Z6rHu2bHjjNZ1Gol+fn94Qf/pBASqVeA am7WMovzmSNj8Ccgzkvtk4WjafkRSgMOTeVGWUFyw8hGfgMoQpy2r2G01XZLlqcv5wZQ 9KyEx4dUB1bMh8iO2iTbZok/sgVorHZMeUoYyxa9N7pewlYUh1EVwkHnO2wu51bHm1el IA8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2UAp73GhFSCYaifJIp/g0TM+rVgCRB2+vY6lbOx82SuX0JduDGvcCS1Xp0wHLhUw==
X-Received: by 10.28.7.144 with SMTP id 138mr1400729wmh.125.1490893929072; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.191.106] ([80.69.10.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm2873371wmg.0.2017.03.30.10.12.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <9c0d9f36-7a07-f9a0-c8b9-75ea5bcb7cf2@kit.edu> <20170330160129.GA5508@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <AM4PR0401MB22415E9C5EC5D01A88452A01BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
From: Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0f6a288c-69e7-c433-c76a-8d5591bb9cf3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:12:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB22415E9C5EC5D01A88452A01BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/zArylJwyYp5bEstbEr2nrEucSHA>
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 17:12:14 -0000


On 30/03/2017 17:29, Khaled Omar wrote:
>> Same issue with the routers in the path. IPv10 would require *all* of
> them to be upgraded for the new packet header format.
>
> What will happen with one router from a specific company will happen with all routers from the same vendors, inserting updates is not that hard,

Khaled,

Please try to view your proposal from the operational side too. 
Designing a protocol wire representation and implementing that for some 
platform is quite trivial compared to the changes that are needed for 
the network support systems, the effort required for validation of that 
new functionality before the deployment, and the feasibility of doing 
the actual flag day deployment. For any practically sized operator that 
would be an exercise of years with associated costs of very substantial 
nature. Please make yourself more familiar with network operational 
realities.


Ignas