The issue is to call hosts with Future IP??? And the packet header that contains a mixture of both versions as future IP packets, I'm really not convinced with that name even if it sounds good.
I still didn't recognize what is the problem of version number 10, it really describes the operation and configuration of hosts as all IPv10 hosts not future IP hosts. Even if we used future IP name, there will be a version number for this packet as there is difference in the packet contents of the source and destination fields. -----Original Message----- From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 8:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 Le 28/09/2017 à 19:21, Khaled Omar a écrit : > U mean IPf, sounds good but after it is implemented it will not be future. I agree with you, but IMHO I am more modest about the future. "IPf" is a name that was already used in implementations to mean "IP filters". I think that "Future IP" could regroup efforts of: IPv10 (Khaled), IPv9 (China), IPv6 (ETSI "Transition to IPv6"), IP-ds9 (see Mr. Eastlake's email). Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:03 PM > To: Khaled Omar; Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 > > How about Future IP. > > - Stewart > > > On 28/09/2017 16:37, Khaled Omar wrote: >> Is there any suggestion for the I-D name other than IPv10? >> >> Khaled > > _______________________________________________ > 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
