IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 25 September 2020 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121C63A0E82; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 05:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 FL1Tz0GBd36Z; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 1D6A83A0E73; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A3281AF; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:42:52 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1601037772; bh=mNfPIN7DgPJQcnkEe+4MZVr/VeC/PxUS9+kW+sZdKsE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kxqSFDXratXlMS4C+60Ycdyb/RgKID8URonapQrc/izFKOEaETzFp3FIBBOrrGSBP N/L+uiy7zb+zICjzfAVOCrUrRMIBEbShPk8AtVdTD16MDQ/PInXZBFVvZa6cSpfJTy QG/KGzXNVdhLs2ddORxvg7o9EL+w7q191H/DXIow=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10389F; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:42:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:42:52 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB02850EAA7D945B9163C84399AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009251436100.20021@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <VI1P194MB0285F47132384AC7C0D8A8DCAE3C0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <F2516A37-06B1-44FC-850F-307114B7D6A5@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285B8AE9ACE88D1AF051ADAAE3A0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <601FB9F8-DB83-4654-B652-BE07C49F7918@gmail.com> <5ab64d0ebef1402d8bf912b937d7c489@huawei.com> <VI1P194MB02850EAA7D945B9163C84399AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-154741348-1601037772=:20021"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GLLwzfwrTu9gwoTB1iWURY1QOWo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:42:57 -0000

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, Khaled Omar wrote:

> That’s why looking into the transitions solutions became a mandatory or 
> a peaceful solution such as IPv10 that will allow both version to 
> coexist and communicate until the full migration.

No, any change now just resets the clock and postpones the transition by 
another 20 years.

Meaningful support for IPv6 has been available in end-devices since the 
2006-2008 timeframe when Windows Vista was released and around the same 
timeframe other end-user operating systems gained support as well.

We're now in 2020 in a situation where basically every end user device in 
use has IPv6 support, even laggards like Smart TVs have started to gain 
IPv6 support. Printers have had IPv6 support for 10+ years.

For your proposal, you have zero running code and thus zero devices 
supporting your proposal.

You keep making these statements that upgrades are easy. They are not. 
Ecosystems take a long time to build. You don't even have running code to 
be able to verify that your proposal actually works (it doesn't).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email