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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Thu, 30 March 2017 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5711E1296AD for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f65pbv0D8Mjl for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2F6B129685 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 iface id 1ctbbF-0003zy-T3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:57 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7295B003E4; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:57 +0200 (CEST)
To: Khaled Omar <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1490886177.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:03:04 -0000

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.