On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > > >> The part that is not clear is why you believe IPv10 will be any more >> successful or quicker to widespread deployment than IPv6. Can you share your >> thoughts? > > > > The deployment of IPv10 is a software development process, this can be > accomplished by technology companies in a short time, there will be no > dependence on enterprises’ users who didn’t migrate to IPv6 till now and > this migration took so much time without full migration. > Khaled,
Probably all hardware supports IPv6, continued IPv6 deployment is a software problem or more aptly it is an infrastructure and management problem. Regarding this statement: "this can be accomplished by technology companies in a short time" -- I see no technical basis for this claim. Since the initial posting of the IPv10, I and and others have asked several times for an implementation. Have you started on one? Without even a prototype it's highly unlikely that technology companies, many of which of representation on this list, are going to put any stock in your arguments about how easy the protocol is to develop and deploy. They're certainly aren't going to take resources off of IPv6 or more tangible projects based on unqualified statements like this. Tom > > > > > > > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 6:47 PM > To: Khaled Omar > Cc: int-area > Subject: Re: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D. > > > > Hi Khaled, > > > > On Sep 29, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Suresh, > > > > The problem I’m trying to solve is to overcome the depletion of IPv4 address > space and the lack of implementing IPv6 , this will cause the IPv6 only > hosts not to be able to access the whole internet as there will be IPv6 only > hosts (18% of the Internet traffic) against the domination of IPv4 only > hosts (82% of the Internet traffic), > > > > The part that is not clear is why you believe IPv10 will be any more > successful or quicker to widespread deployment than IPv6. Can you share your > thoughts? > > > > > > IPmix allows IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4 only hosts and vice > versa, and this will allow the coexistence of both version without any > separation or division on the Internet > > > > NAT64 (RFC6146) already allows "IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4 only > hosts and vice versa”. > > > > Regards > > Suresh > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
