Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

I don’t know why people are still lazy and preferring the easy way which is to keep waiting and see maybe something new will happen, IMHP enough time to wait and we should work on something already existing to solve the problem completely.

Khaled Omar

From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 6:41 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm@boeddinghaus.de>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:37 PM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>> wrote:
>> have you ever run a network?

Yes.

>> It is the operators who have to change all of their security (firewall rules, access lists, etc.), not the vendors. They have to modify the hardware, invent new asics, write new software.

Will be the same except that the location of the addresses will be changed in the packet header, and this is a software process.

... except that it is not -- almost all routers forward in hardware, and replacing them all is not feasible...

>> Can you show us a running implementation? Windows, Linux, Free Range Routing? Do you have a plan to modify the routing protocols used today (BGP, KRP, NEP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS, etc.)?

Unfortunately, I'm not a software developer, and regarding the routing protocols, what changes will occur, routers will build normally their routing tables based on the used routing protocol normally, all that will be changed is the coming packet which will be IPv10 packet, routers will choose the corresponding routing tables based on the destination IP address inside the IPv10 packet.

>> Just repeating your arguments does not seem to help. And IPv6 is a good example how long it takes to implement a new protocol.

I think you are aware of the recent situation, the community is angry when they feel that no solution showed by the organization that responsible for making Internet standards.

>> Please go forward, develop your draft, write some code to show how easy it is to implement your solution, but stop trying to convince us with what you have, you need more.

Simply, if you are not convinced, don't participate in the standardization process and the code developing process.

In my opinion this thread is off-topic for v6ops; it is not related to IPv6 operations.

W

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Wilhelm Boeddinghaus
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 6:19 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Hi Khaled,

have you ever run a network?

It is the operators who have to change all of their security (firewall rules, access lists, etc.), not the vendors. They have to modify the hardware, invent new asics, write new software.

The problem you try to solve is not "expensive" enough for the world to invest in your solution. Its all about money.

Can you show us a running implementation? Windows, Linux, Free Range Routing? Do you have a plan to modify the routing protocols used today (BGP, OSPF, ISIS, etc.)? Maybe a good showcase can convince the engineers and operators on this list. Just repeating your arguments does not seem to help. And IPv6 is a good example how long it takes to implement a new protocol.

Please go forward, develop your draft, write some code to show how easy it is to implement your solution, but stop trying to convince us with what you have, you need more.

Best,

Wilhelm

Am 14.09.2020 um 17:11 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> Yes, but WHO will do that modification, those will do it:
>
> Google, Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, Huawei, Juniper, Fortinet, etc.......
>
> Not the USERS.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no<mailto:ola@nlogic.no>>
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>>; v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
>
> On 14.09.2020 16:23, Khaled Omar wrote:
>
>>>> You say this is not a new protocol, but you still specify a header format in section 4 of your draft.
>> The discussion will keep repeating if the ietf will not show a different solution to the community that suffers now from the depletion of IPv4.
>
> No. The discussion keeps repeating because you do not realize that you are trying to suggest that ALL hosts on the internet needs to be updated to support _another_ protocol than IPv4 and IPv6.  A "protocol" you have invented.  Nobody else is bringing this suggestion up again and again.
>
>
>
>> Regarding the new packet header, users will not have a problem with it, its migration from v4 packet to v10 packet, that’s all.
>
> USERS don't have a problem with IPv6 headers either.  But their hardware might have issues.  And their OS will definitely have issues with this new protocol.  And all their firewalls, access lists, applications, security policies etc needs to be reconfigured in the exact same way if they decide to start using "IPv10" as they would if they started using IPv6.
>
>
> Rgds.
>
> /Ola (T)
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
   ---maf