> How many versions of IP can there be? (what is the size of the space?)
I think this will be the last one, because it combines both versions' address space. Khaled -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:29 PM To: Khaled Omar Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 Le 28/09/2017 à 15:40, Khaled Omar a écrit : > Alex, > >> I dont understand that - can you please repeat? > > We didn't try to have a WG or even a mail list for IPv10 discussions > so we can understand who is participating and if there will be a > consensus or not. That's a long phrase. Too long for me to understand. [...] > Why IANA will not reserve version number 10 as it is not already > assigned > https://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml How many versions of IP can there be? (what is the size of the space?) Alex > > Regards, > > Khaled Omar > > -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu > [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 28, > 2017 3:28 PM To: Khaled Omar Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] > IP-not-v10 > > Le 28/09/2017 à 15:07, Khaled Omar a écrit : >> Hi Alex, >> >>> People did something like this in the past. They were so happy to >>> get their WG but without clear idea what to do in it. One may even >>> create a very ephemeral assembly, in which a few people talk about >>> the same thing, during few hours, and agree on next steps. >>> It's a very enlightening experience. >> >> We didn't try this with IPv10 yet to have an influence regarding the >> participants and consensus, > > I dont understand that - can you please repeat? > > [...] >> Regarding the name, I think there is a second name suggested on the >> draft which is IPmix, > > "IPmix" can sound good, although it can sound also like a 'soup' or > 'mixture'. > > Makes me also think of MMIX which is a computer architecture with a > second meaning: it means 2009 in latin numbering (the year it was > supposed to get into production, which unfortunately did not happen). > >> it can be used instead of IPv10 which IMHO better to identify the >> packet. > > It will not be possible to get a number like '10' to identify IP > packets, like 4 or 6 does. They wont give it, however hard one may > try. I think that is because there is not enough place left. At the > rate of one version every 10 years it will be quickly exhausted. > > Can you please look where are these numbers defined: 4 and 6, for IP. > > Alex > >> >> Regards, >> >> Khaled Omar >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Int-area >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu >> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:15 PM To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 >> >> >> >> Le 12/09/2017 à 16:25, Khaled Omar a écrit : >>> We can make the opposite, first creating a wg, then we will know who >>> is interested to work on the IPv10 I-D. >> >> People did something like this in the past. They were so happy to >> get their WG but without clear idea what to do in it. >> >> WGs come and go anyway. >> >> One may even create a very ephemeral assembly, in which a few people >> talk about the same thing, during few hours, and agree on next steps. >> It's a very elightening experience. >> >> Alex >> >>> >>> Khaled Omar >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10. >>> From: Lee Howard To: Khaled Omar CC: int-area >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Khaled Omar <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, September 12, >>> 2017 at 9:17 AM To: Lee Howard <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: int-area <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv10. >>> >>> After answering questions of people who send me e-mails publicly or >>> privately the discussion stops at this point, that’s why I keep >>> updating the I-D to make it more clear for other people reading the >>> draft for the 1^st time. >>> >>> If there are people who want to work on IPv10, they need to say so. >>> There can’t be consensus if only one or two people think a document >>> is worth working on. If you have received private statements of >>> support, those people need to send messages to the list. >>> >>> Yes, they have to send to the list but some are asking if there is a >>> wg for IPv10 or not. >>> >>> >>> There won’t be a working group unless there are people interested in >>> forming a working group. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> *From:* Lee Howard [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Tuesday, >>> September 12, 2017 3:08 PM *To:* Khaled Omar; int-area >>> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] IPv10. >>> >>> What evidence do you see that there is consensus support for this? >>> >>> For an IETF document, it should get adopted by a working group (WG). >>> If there is no existing WG which could include this in its charter, >>> you might need to create a WG; Area Directors (ADs) would want to >>> see that there was broad support for the effort, and many people >>> willing to work on it. I’m not an AD, but I would question one who >>> thought there was consensus support for IPv10. >>> >>> If there are people who want to work on IPv10, they need to say so. >>> There can’t be consensus if only one or two people think a document >>> is worth working on. If you have received private statemetns of >>> support, those people need to send messages to the list. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> *From: *Int-area <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Khaled Omar >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> *Date: *Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM *To: *int-area >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> *Cc: *intarea-ads >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, intarea-chairs >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> *Subject: >>> *[Int-area] IPv10. >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Is IPv10 still not considered on your list of agenda, I think the >>> discussion phase has passed. >>> >>> I would like thank everyone who participated or reviewed the >>> IPv10 I-D, but still some steps of work to be done and the decision >>> is out of my hands. >>> >>> I don’t know how consensus be calculated at the IETF and whom is >>> responsible for its final decision, either still some work to be >>> done for adoption or start publishing the I-D. >>> >>> Waiting for the coming meeting is not a good idea as there is a >>> short time for the presentation and we may face another remote >>> technical problem as occurred at IETF 98. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Khaled Omar >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing >>> list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing >>> list [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
