As I'm here on the list discussing it, we should come to a final conclusion and start working on making it official, just to have a clear mind with good intention and everything will be fine.
Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 1:30 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 Khalid, You still avoid 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. If upgrade is so easy -then we do not need any interim solution. Just IPv6. Right? Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: Khaled Omar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28 сентября 2020 г. 14:22 > 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 > > >> 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
