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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu> Thu, 30 March 2017 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 5711E1296AD for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f65pbv0D8Mjl for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 D2F6B129685 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ctbbF-0003zy-T3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:57 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7295B003E4; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:57 +0200 (CEST)
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <9c0d9f36-7a07-f9a0-c8b9-75ea5bcb7cf2@kit.edu>
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: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1490886177.
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/zJOmvXt7DkFKfAT7mUHnO9Qcu6U>
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 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.

Best,
 Roland