IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 25 September 2020 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 1F7983A0A10 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7u2sW5CWTbmS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BE0A3A0902 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 08PD7kQB039568 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:07:47 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <VI1P194MB0285F47132384AC7C0D8A8DCAE3C0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <F2516A37-06B1-44FC-850F-307114B7D6A5@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285B8AE9ACE88D1AF051ADAAE3A0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <601FB9F8-DB83-4654-B652-BE07C49F7918@gmail.com> <5ab64d0ebef1402d8bf912b937d7c489@huawei.com> <VI1P194MB02850EAA7D945B9163C84399AE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <ac5fc80a-ff06-18e2-b8bf-2e5e4c6a1d90@nlogic.no> <VI1P194MB028559BEA400CA9EE6C5B26DAE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <2a994ebf-1b7b-7cb5-7216-5d25af510c04@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:07:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.30
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB028559BEA400CA9EE6C5B26DAE360@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rWMJ8aTodd-Hohhg5cPate5r3NM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:07:55 -0000

Khaled Omar wrote on 25/09/2020 13:04:
> Why repeating same incorrect statements about IPv10?!
> 
> The update process is simple, the migration process is difficult.
> 
> The update process is easy, the translation process requires more efforts.

That's great.  Where can I download your code to test how easy it is to 
upgrade to ipv10?

v6ops@ietf is IPv6 operations, i.e. for discussion where the code has 
already been written and people are having operational issues.

If you haven't written code, then v6ops is automatically the wrong IETF 
working group.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email