Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 14 September 2020 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 AC4D73A0DD5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 SrZaA4hrP6Uk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDFD33A0A42 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 08EHkH1L078182 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:46:17 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <159985752195.15551.2657932726923781035@ietfa.amsl.com> <3FA82C44-0005-45BA-AB09-FAE63C8CD626@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB028561F81F5118ABC14967DFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <3B5995B1-CD7A-444C-AD64-37C09E46A763@thehobsons.co.uk> <4fa01d01-bc2e-0f01-77f1-13dd4f6f2430@hit.bme.hu> <VI1P194MB0285FCDBFB6A86DF954D1782AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <e0e4e5cf-1563-fca1-1388-68c8789384de@nlogic.no> <VI1P194MB0285090A6E66464C9612EE34AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <a461b63d-acfc-dd07-61e4-04f38ac85c95@nlogic.no> <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <f149036e-6f14-259d-66a7-6f9c6ff92207@boeddinghaus.de> <VI1P194MB02850F23AF935024E5281F15AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAHw9_iKE0KHbM0BD8HSc3xxeUDeeWbRvrH-Kfxn_7a8fi72hQA@mail.gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285958CAA801F8C915B81D0AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <c5eecbd3-2416-a132-39f1-4a35d2debf56@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:46:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.29
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB0285958CAA801F8C915B81D0AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bSpnEMtwUNr3pCzSnd8a4khRlTM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:46:23 -0000

Khaled Omar wrote on 14/09/2020 17:45:
> 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,

There have been hundreds of emails over the last couple of years written 
by people who've looked at your proposals and who have unanimously come 
to the same conclusion:

	None of your proposals are going to work.

So when you ask an IETF working group to work on your proposals, you're 
asking people to spend time on something they think is not going to work.

If you want the IETF to take your ideas seriously, then you need to 
prove to people that they're going to work.

A good way to start would be to listen to what people are saying, and 
fix some of the more serious problems that people have patiently taken 
time to comment on.

Here are some ideas:

1. write a working implementation of "ipv10".  Or even a proof of 
concept which allows a single application to make a single connection 
over "ipv10" to another ipv4 or ipv6 host on another network.

2. update the specifications for other protocols to support "ipv10", 
e.g. routing protocols: BGP, mpls, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, ISIS, etc.  There are 
at least 500 RFCs for these protocols alone, so why not take just a 
small selection and update them to support "ipv10".  If you wrote a 
working implementation, then that would be even better.

3. write an API specification for host applications to handle dual 
addressing.

4. write an implementation of your "routing protocol" which allows one 
network to exchange routing information with another network.  Pro tip: 
make sure it works over "ipv10".

It's no use to say that you're not a programmer and that it's someone 
else's job to write the code for your ideas. People have made it clear 
that they think your ideas won't work, so if you want your ideas to be 
taken seriously, then it's your responsibility to prove them wrong.

It's also useless to argue endlessly that people should take your ideas 
seriously.  People won't take them seriously unless you can show that 
they actually work in real life.

When you've written code to show that your ideas work then come back to 
the IETF and maybe at that stage people will take your ideas more seriously.

Nick