Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Fred Baker <> Mon, 14 September 2020 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E41F3A0DD6 for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MZJq4aqYOgkm for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2B4A3A0D4E for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u3so254476pjr.3 for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=us6ixX5CoWA+NeUYl6GtCW41WR8/Mu+3wGd+EIgql8A=; b=nH2cjAoPMSiHLOCl6jSLQdWyweVlRlN7unf42mKAQihJ5C99776WBnEbt3PSeC78Mo DENWRwXsY4j0DlOZwX0rD3ErzNDasPb67q3sBcQQ2yjccq9f1W7kgsuOt7zaMuV5utLz C0WbAdQemSgEKtQ615nf1GIbWMh553QmgBJcQJkUUUNYLbMVhX2L3zknzazH4p8v/A9h NqoUbWfNGOwfhDFHfBryfuh8jqvmT2/jH39BDUnDHhZuE9FXwy3AWOP6parH4+GCbsvL SvgsjzGMk6cxVgLaQL1pjJtb6Z4hP1U9K1jzIMoQFWZSdgRtCa3F6tRtKzYsDr/I3pjx M7QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=us6ixX5CoWA+NeUYl6GtCW41WR8/Mu+3wGd+EIgql8A=; b=Is7mlYanf3tr+a9b5TPZT3wV4u4abmHRyE3pvgq0agKXSXaAqCPp4J50xISJZs3WI1 4V2HvndRLuR9BdFM0cSHcDHTq/jBBbsj3lhjr7s+ZkAELVMs7+yMKBV//fvbm25oNRUo EPcN+D6ab+7EEwZTssdDtahin0Xa6gjQ1Njyz3ZHdz8wDYYWuW/K5S1yy/9kcF6+GvHF VthJz1wMRYXppVFdRSeT9MiKG7zjg1YUZ+ZoGsA4C46MhKMldgE4nzx505LEV7ZWo8vO 26imDjzjWaWfXO5Y2U+bVjffgb4+2EdYLikbX9T00C1hlUyGEUZC5AJwS+00ZcGx5Ql/ qbHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DkFk12AAxEgEpByWz/BIRsZXoN0OVRBtB7nwrfL4liVdu8zVx 4SBiz8jhC+45pe8g4ZnPh+A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyI3IQF6BDr2YYCDux8zKKuBT3as9i5GwTwhtpC4+kuotfDJsR60ptS1rWw8vVttuSWMf4Gg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8a04:: with SMTP id w4mr524763pjn.72.1600106665278; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:648:8200:dd20:b4ad:47cc:7f47:31f6]) by with ESMTPSA id k7sm9868176pjs.9.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:04:18 -0700
Cc: Ola Thoresen <>,
Message-Id: <>
References: <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Khaled Omar <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A5373a)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:04:27 -0000

On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Khaled Omar <> 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 <> 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <>om>;
> 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.