Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nick and ALL,

>> 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.

Are you sure you read all the draft, it has examples on Layer 3 that IPv10 will only work on, there are no more possibilities than the 4 mentioned on the draft.

>> 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.

First we need to finalize the work on this one, then we can think about what are other protocols that needs to have an EXTENDED update to adapt with IPv10.

I can see a light at the end of the tunnel but there should more participation to use all experiences and GAIN consensus.

>> 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.

People didn't offer another practical solution, the problem is clear, and people are putting their faces inside the ground and they think everything is fine, which is not the truth.

This is really weird that there is no official administrative decision to explain the problem and the solution (that comes from anywhere) whether here on the list or the news to answer all people concerns.

>> 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.

Since I've been working with many nationalities (like Australians, Deutsch, Egyptians, and many more) and after a good time I can say that it is a matter of choice to choose the people you need to work with, that’s why I say who is interested, can join the discussion and the standardization process and will gain more experience.

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:46 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

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