Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Mon, 14 September 2020 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
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 A6A7A3A0DE6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com
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 yYR6lOZZGD3x for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092072058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.72.58]) (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 A02AF3A0DE3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=kfH+aJqyGyepSRNGdvBwzrSW2FGXGlbTs9npuyHadH5BV5SiDu8bfriVrQHgzVX7xCveDPel0uIdH5Mi33U3mFfZdRSHZ85zFOkkuyzXr5W19EIBdwtD4Ez1kXSMoQjFDJiiglqUAAnCfcXRl6YywGQfaK/zTO5r370K+G4rZ2hLjK+d9IFol8GPKJK8kZvwVOQfTh0naNT3VcqffcylmGKUG4pvMiH9VeKN9ANDmPMHbGd7LfjBsw5p3oyKrldk+9vBsmKwAtovqccuyfHQ5oOaxZ6N4d31bFXNHn/0eGhsvOH49e5hZYemvk5YpGnPzYRFhKH1L+Iq2KQMPGxCSg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eYyoZdrMELnE0mC9gSIaMMo/Gtpw3Xw/um2WIt4SsIU=; b=nSbo2kxZ+T1dUp2+F9wH4ECj+gDkYGI9J5kuFRae6rJfkzu314Sa82D8/rh3Sirg9tk7ut7YIlOURFrUDscTunK7tTu6jQqUjfgqvcCSjlLJdmVm0rJByuK/wtk08DK2N4ZULHrsTKqIb1U5Jk1RTxqsTQzAVBxtzwC+OZKfFxo+YD035W7dSNtl8eFOP2o/umCGUXKDXR70VScUdKa6Y4sVNoYftsUurtRGe+XOn0FgG0EsLwFkWLRzkH0KRSuWQZ3qlNRdvjvQZvEgH7Tl3CevbcdTLoRYcO/0Xd2ElTfati4lhBhvP10z6uLJfajqPMdnrmKfKYawh9dOe/I++g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eYyoZdrMELnE0mC9gSIaMMo/Gtpw3Xw/um2WIt4SsIU=; b=buyMJXFS+zB7PCDE+k0we9mbqJgPbLkajXaEFN24ekSZhq7CkNutpFgFGSw5s274sJolOGJjmXoEKUrtbypPHs53tufUqdA4K1CUZs74KDSrRZhGb5vjyvV9NKVlyQrOc9s8eQtKEjY8TwkQns4QD63xMaXqTc8OHdSRKeDr2/0sByvu68ryhld9anyL8IYR0UhanJH4UMZVwhHZK7uMfR51Il4vGBQJhM0VK7IhALZiGsqYb9oMbDVfjpUykSGzZGCYpl5pFEQ4HTXc4ff/uH2tVHuSsBfMxgnuu28FdbWyPbFTgJR6txBwWSXrW0MIhdiFdZDZKuovA9ch1PU6Fw==
Received: from DB5EUR03FT032.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e0a::43) by DB5EUR03HT055.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e0a::201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:11:53 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:7e0a::51) by DB5EUR03FT032.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e0a::162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:11:53 +0000
Received: from VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8]) by VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::89f6:7540:e834:ffb8%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3370.019; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:11:53 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
Thread-Index: AQHWiT43LYhHc7LQV0ie1xfS7y0F1aloGfGQgAAENwCAAAu+gIAAAGeQgAAHggCAAAB2MIAADOUAgAAAavCAADDdAIAAARKQ
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:11:53 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1P194MB0285A955B7094C64B70F2BF8AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <D9691B71-B89F-48B1-BB24-D2465CCAD126@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9691B71-B89F-48B1-BB24-D2465CCAD126@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:F5393B7EC4C8D60A7B7928B2B0AC0BC052DDB384A6120A3A0145E98F7826A0CF; UpperCasedChecksum:442E5B4FD675F26BD0B4C0A843F0D3949A7036BDED0CDAC0D55DFD48F9FEED31; SizeAsReceived:2871; Count:43
x-tmn: [3PMXSij99qPDU0eAb2Z7f1Yfog0sWrRL]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 43
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0053e9c8-7f9b-4e3d-2f14-08d858d9a8c3
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB5EUR03HT055:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6qgluErDVHq9l6Y/mXS16vSvihLiOMzsxsV9Ayd7i1eHu1wfzgKXKOnKMtkMDvUi2Kvgzg4lcvmimb7I/OJqpO1y27XkiflCVluu7iMC+aJWlWqpBoJ0ADMbjuRaMiyyhcolbiInJUL7sFBxspy7mE4I202zlWf5b6n5mP1/iSKFSXGR5hQu8h4blCABFGqj
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 9QdeQFX54Zvq76aNmNGzRdS5lJsKq2mEsfmdNpGg7np/d31poa0BAWw+E1fQ2FRv3ZjNKMV6ixKt9Tsj5Aop7GfJm3tcJNr0X4LgzrQRSIZUF5Q0qWhVtpg2uGDTkZK+944i1b0yLQODbkIYF9wEyA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB5EUR03FT032.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0053e9c8-7f9b-4e3d-2f14-08d858d9a8c3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Sep 2020 18:11:53.4317 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5EUR03HT055
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/y4_c1Z78VaFqUkhRxF_YMSUQ8rw>
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 18:11:58 -0000

>> Let me make this clear: we are working on Ipv6 deployment, not deployment of alternatives or transition technologies. This I have explained the process by which folks can get air time. IPv10 doesn’t qualify: you haven’t identified a working group in which the protocol described in section 4 is under discussion, you haven’t posted a revision, and multiple people have told you it doesn’t make sense in their environment.

The destructive criticism can be neglected as long as they are not offering solutions to the problem, if we will listen, it will be only a waste of time, believe me, following the standardization process and steps starts by moving the discussion to the appropriate Working Group, if you think that v6ops and int-area are not the appropriate groups, then announce it officially that you cannot consider IPv10 as a solution and announce your alternative solution, and I will be watching and waiting for an applicable solution that solves the problem from the roots.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:04 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no>no>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>om>; 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

Let me make this clear: we are working on Ipv6 deployment, not deployment of alternatives or transition technologies. This I have explained the process by which folks can get air time. IPv10 doesn’t qualify: you haven’t identified a working group in which the protocol described in section 4 is under discussion, you haven’t posted a revision, and multiple people have told you it doesn’t make sense in their environment.

In my first response to you, I tried very hard to be polite and give you an outline of your way forward. People complain that the IETF can be difficult. Now it’s my turn to be difficult.

Your proposed protocol doesn’t fit v6ops’ charter. Therefore, no, you don’t get air time.