>> You have IPv4 address inserted into IPv6. This is in the IP mix draft, not the IPv10 draft, IPv10 has no IPv4 embedded address.
Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:12 AM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft Hi Khalid, You have avoided to answer my primary question: > There is a logical hole in your proposal: > If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to > upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved. > Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 protocols > in the data plane? (second header is IPv10) It is not logical. Does not make > sense. You have IPv4 address inserted into IPv6. Believe you or not - industry does use "stateless translation" name for such solutions. You have invented 9th version of address translation, that is not fully specified. I do not see advantages against RFC 6144. Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: Khaled Omar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 21:47 > To: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has > changed.... Re: IPv10 draft > > >> If you look inside the draft - you would see that it is additional > >> version of IPv6 > Stateless translation with IPv4-embedded addresses again. > > Eduard, There are no any kind of translation used, it is just mixing > the two version in the same header, one as a source the other as a > destination. > > >> Your solution already exist. It is RFC 6144 - April 2011. Please, read > >> this RFC. > It has a bit more details then yours. > > This draft uses translators, where is the statement that two versions > can exist in the same header and achieve the communication?! > > >> And what you propose to do in the next 20 years when part of host > >> would > already support IPv10, but other part does not? > > Good question, all the devices has to step by step be updated, then we > can switch on a flag day to IPv10, so this will give time to > developers to first write the code, then apply the code gradually on all OSs. > > >> Additionally I need to inform you that people are not satisfied > >> with stateless > translation, because long transition needs IPv4 per every host, but > IPv4 is in shortage. > > We will not need more IPv4 addresses, as new hosts will be assigned > IPv6 addresses and still be able to communicate with the IPv4 hosts. > > Khaled Omar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:22 PM > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > Cc: IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has > changed.... Re: IPv10 draft > > Hi all, > I have looked to the draft. This hurricane is a little groundless. > > Experts, > What Khaled was trying to invent is not a new IP protocol. It is just > a mistake that it was called IPv10. > If you look inside the draft - you would see that it is additional > version of IPv6 Stateless translation with IPv4-embedded addresses again. > Hence, billions of man-hours that is needed for development of new IP > protocol is not needed. It is good news. > > Khaled, > Your solution already exist. It is RFC 6144 - April 2011. Please, read > this RFC. It has a bit more details then yours. > Just nobody before you was so brave to propose stateless translation > directly from every host in the world. Everybody else was thinking > about some gateways to keep the majority of hosts intact. > There is a logical hole in your proposal: > If it possible to upgrade every host from IPv4, then why not to > upgrade it to IPv6 directly? That's it - problem solved. > Why anybody would need to upgrade hosts to combination of 2 protocols > in the data plane? (second header is IPv10) It is not logical. Does not make > sense. > > By the way, it is not possible to upgrade every host in the world out > of IPv4 (nobody see money to do the job) - but it is the second > problem that you would not face because of previous problem. > > And what you propose to do in the next 20 years when part of host > would already support IPv10, but other part does not? > > Additionally I need to inform you that people are not satisfied with > stateless translation, because long transition needs IPv4 per every > host, but IPv4 is in shortage. > Hence, other translation technologies: 464XLAT, MAP-T/E, DS-lite, lw4o6. > If you trying to attack translation topic - you need to read all of these > carefully. > > Eduard _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
