Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

Ola Thoresen <> Mon, 14 September 2020 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E233A0B1F for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.723
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNzxc_4jpjg9 for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66693A09DF for <>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 08EF7uiP009497 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:07:56 +0200
To: Khaled Omar <>, "" <>
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>
From: Ola Thoresen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:07:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1P194MB0285090A6E66464C9612EE34AE230@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 15:08:03 -0000

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 


/Ola (T)