OMG, there is no translation, those are two different addresses from two different versions, 4 and 6.
The first 128 bit contains IPv4 address and because the new packet header contains 128-bit address, I added the MAC address and stream zeros. This is in an older version of the draft, the last version explains using extension headers to the same v4 and v6 packet headers. Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 2:52 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 And you believe that if you would reinvent Stateless IPv6-IPv4 translation, Then this translation would be adopted faster... About your comment that I was looking to different draft. You have 3 drafts overall. I am looking to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-12 Where 1/3 of the document is discussion how to properly put IPv6 inside IPv4: | V4 | 128-bit | 128-bit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data| Source IPv4 Address MAC 000..0 | Destination IPv6 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Yes, I know that you did rename IPv6 to IPv10, hence IPv6 mapping is easy. Ed/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Khaled Omar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28 сентября 2020 г. 14:33 > 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 > > Not right, IPv6 took so "long" time so devices can migrate to, upper > thing, IPv10 uses both types of communication, so it solves everything > from the roots, if you will follow the draft step by step, you will > find out that even with DNS it works 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
