Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <> Mon, 14 September 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4733A0CCF for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qLcS589J0mF for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C3883A0CCE for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03ACD20B0A for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:18:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lUYmMtmdNEgY for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:18:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: willem) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F412D20A6D for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:18:34 +0200 (CEST)
References: <> <VI1P194MB0285E344B7B3E9697E6ED608AE240@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <VI1P194MB028561F81F5118ABC14967DFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <VI1P194MB0285FCDBFB6A86DF954D1782AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <VI1P194MB0285090A6E66464C9612EE34AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:18:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB0285F92EB7A41638CCD943BFAE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: de-DE
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 16:18:41 -0000

Hi Khaled,

have you ever run a network?

It is the operators who have to change all of their security (firewall 
rules, access lists, etc.), not the vendors. They have to modify the 
hardware, invent new asics, write new software.

The problem you try to solve is not "expensive" enough for the world to 
invest in your solution. Its all about money.

Can you show us a running implementation? Windows, Linux, Free Range 
Routing? Do you have a plan to modify the routing protocols used today 
(BGP, OSPF, ISIS, etc.)? Maybe a good showcase can convince the 
engineers and operators on this list. Just repeating your arguments does 
not seem to help. And IPv6 is a good example how long it takes to 
implement a new protocol.

Please go forward, develop your draft, write some code to show how easy 
it is to implement your solution, but stop trying to convince us with 
what you have, you need more.



Am 14.09.2020 um 17:11 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> 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.
> No. The discussion keeps repeating because you do not realize that you are trying to suggest that ALL hosts on the internet needs to be updated to support _another_ protocol than IPv4 and IPv6.  A "protocol" you have invented.  Nobody else is bringing this suggestion up again and again.
>> Regarding the new packet header, users will not have a problem with it, its migration from v4 packet to v10 packet, that’s all.
> USERS don't have a problem with IPv6 headers either.  But their hardware might have issues.  And their OS will definitely have issues with this new protocol.  And all their firewalls, access lists, applications, security policies etc needs to be reconfigured in the exact same way if they decide to start using "IPv10" as they would if they started using IPv6.
> Rgds.
> /Ola (T)
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list