Le 28/09/2017 à 16:37, Khaled Omar a écrit :
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 - I read you; it sounds overly optimistic about our capability to
solve very many problems with just one version number :-) I am not so
optimistic about my own capability to achieve that.
But, if I may come back to my question of how many versions of IP can
there be.
The "Version" field in both the IPv6 and IPv4 Header Formats is 4 bits
long, where we could encode maximum 16 versions for IP. IPv4 was in
1981, IPv10 in 2017, and so very soon we may reach IPv16.
Fearing that exhaustion, I would try to look at other things than at the
Version number in IP.
I would maybe look in the other fields of IPv6. Maybe look at the
Extension Headers. They are made especially for those, including
myself, would like to extend IPv6 further and beyond.
The mechanism that you describe in section 3.1 "IPv6 Host to IPv4 Host"
can happen with an extension header, rather than with the base header
where the Version number sits.
Starting with Extension Headers would allow one to experiment on
computers (not just on paper).
What do you think about using Extension Headers, rather than a new
Version number?
Alex
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
