As you know, IPv4 lifetime is short (if IPv10 will be used), if the allocation of IPv6 follows the requirements of KRP, then we can move correctly to KRP, if more than one thing will be missing, then we all will face the consequences, read the draft carefully and the problem really is that it depends on the practical human intervention which I don’t like at all, things defined must be done independent of any other thing, this is IMHO, I must gain a profit from the non-stoppable efforts to this draft.
Khaled Omar From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:38 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]>; Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]>; rtgwg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: KRP ID Discussion. Khaled and all, I think that any proposal that involves massive (world-wide if I understand you correctly) re-allocation of already allocated stable public IPv4/IPv6 addresses can be safely rejected as impractical without going into any additional technical details. My 2c. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020, 16:20 To: Zhuangshunwan; rtgwg Subject: Re: KRP ID Discussion. Yes, it does. Get Outlook for iOS<https://clicktime.symantec.com/38dTJPJvRNhZrmapq1p1v3L6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef> ________________________________ From: Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 3:18:12 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: KRP ID Discussion. Hi Khaled, Does this solution require hierarchical IPv4/IPv6 address re-allocation? Regards, Shunwan From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Khaled Omar Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 7:20 AM To: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: KRP ID Discussion. Dear RTGWG members, As you saw, I wasn’t able to present the KRP ID during the IETF 108 online meeting due to personal reasons, but you still have the chance to read and add your comments to make the draft take the best form to make progress, all participants are encouraged to modify the recent version and if something is unclear don’t hesitate to ask. Regards, Khaled Omar From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:36 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: KRP ID Discussion. Hi Khaled Omar, Instead of only asking me to review the draft, a better way is to send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and ask people to review it. You can include a pointer to your slides as well, and people interested in this topic will send their comments. Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:18 PM Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Yingzhen, As my online participation to discuss KRP was not successful, it will be great if you read the draft and tell me your opinions, comments and suggestions so we can work on it and move it to the next better form. Thanks, Khaled Omar ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments. ________________________________
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
