Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

>> What has changed since 2017 that would make it productive to revisit this proposal again?

Many things has changed, but let me ask you, What the ietf has for this problem? What has changed since 2017?

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:06 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ola Thoresen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 8:24 AM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> 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.
>
Khaled,

The draft was already thoroughly discussed in int-area back in 2017 (there were at least three threads). There was a pretty clear consensus that IETF should not work on it. For instance, my opinion from Oct. 4, 2017 was:

"The draft and the concept have been thoroughly discussed on int-area list (twice). I don't see that the problem is worth solving, the proposed solution is remotely feasible, or that the author is willing to apply feedback from the discussion."

What has changed since 2017 that would make it productive to revisit this proposal again?

Tom


> Regarding the new packet header, users will not have a problem with it, its migration from v4 packet to v10 packet, that’s all.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ola Thoresen
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 4:20 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
>
> Khaled:
>
> You have promoted this discussion again and again over many years, yet you do not listen to any of the objections that people have.
>
> You say this is not a new protocol, but you still specify a header format in section 4 of your draft.
>
> You then state in section 5.2 that:
>
> 5. Advantages of IPv10.
>
>      2) Allows IPv4 only hosts to exist and communicate with IPv6 only
>         hosts even after the depletion of the IPv4 address space.
>
> But this is an obvious lie.
>
> What this "IPv10" allows, is for "IPv10" hosts to talk to other "IPv10"
> hosts if ALL of the routers on the internet between those two hosts also are "IPv10" enabled.
>
> That is NOT the same as allowing IPv4 _only_ hosts to talk to IPv6 _only_ hosts.  They both need to actively talk and understand this "IPv10" protocol and header format. You clearly do not grasp this, but this is the big issue with your draft.  You ARE suggesting that every single host on the internet should add another protocol to its stack, and you even believe that this can happen very fast:
>
>
>      5) IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed
>         in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs
>         (for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no
>         dependence on enterprise users and it is just a software
>         development process in the NIC cards of all hosts to allow
>         encapsulating both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same IP packet header.
>
>
> While we are still struggling to get lots of devices to support IPv6, which has been in development and widely supported in operating systems and hardware for more than a decade.
> So please. Until you understand what you are really trying to achieve here, do not expect any progress in getting this accepted by the community - and especially not the IPv6 community.
>
>
> Rgds.
>
> /Ola (T)
>
>
> On 14.09.2020 15:55, Khaled Omar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Don't copy the opinion that was mentioned there, use your own mind and give a clear opinion to make the discussion beneficial.
> >
> > Maybe they have their own reasoning.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lencse Gábor
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:52 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
> >
> > Simon, you are completely right: this thing has already been 
> > discussed on int-area mailing list in 2017. It was pointed out that 
> > the name was misleading, as well as that this solution was not at 
> > all viable as an
> > IPv6 transition mechanism.
> >
> > I do not see any reason to reiterate the topic on this mailing list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Gábor
> >
> > 14/09/2020 15:09 keltezéssel, Simon Hobson írta:
> >> Khaled Omar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Is it possible to reserve a slot for the IPv10 I-D to be presented completely during the v6ops wg meeting session?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06
> >> I only had a quick look, but doesn't this just re-hash discussions/documentation that's already been done elsewhere ?
> >> Also, I think calling it IPv10 is just asking to cause confusion - 
> >> it should be rejected just for that ;-)
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops