By "translation" I mean something completely new. It is written in the paper:
Splitting the path to two (or more) parts. One part is IPv4, the other part is IPv6. Source IPv4 <-> Translator IPv4 Translator IPv6 <-> Destination IPv6 We take the data found in the IPv4 packet, we put it in an IPv6 packet (and vice versa). By translation, I do not mean translating the information found the in the headers. We only copy data. (from IPv4 packet to IPv6 packet and vice versa). See the paper for illustration (Figure 2). How TCP works on this, I don't know yet. I don't have to know it right now. What is important is "What we want". 1. Worry about the core network, i.e. others' IP version preferences forever, or 2. Change the end-node TCP design, if necessary to solve this problem. Sending a packet from an IPv4 host to an IPv6 host, connected using such a translator, is a routing problem. The problem is that TCP assumes same IP version for source and destination. We need another type of identifier, perhaps. Such proposals exist already. But again, what is important here is not the solution. What is important is "What we want". It is one of the two possibilities mentioned above. The second one, better respects the end-to-end principle. Pars On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote: > > The big flaw of your idea is that you suppose that translation magically > works, which it is not true due to the complexity of some protocols. That > is why I am sceptical. > > You are very welcome to try your idea. Let me know how it goes. > > /as > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 11:21, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > Hi Arturo, > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 11 Sep 2012, at 10:55, Pars Mutaf wrote: >> >> >> "Do you have some running code?" >> >> These are all ideas and behavior that we adopted without questioning. We >> use them in wrong situations generally. >> >> >> Which already exists in many forms of translation mechanisms that we know >> are not the best way to solve the problem. There are plenty of documents on >> the Internet that will tell you why. >> > > > I believe that people should be able to choose their own solutions. Would > you transition to IPv6 if Discrete IP worked for you? Some entities may, > others may not, others may do it when they have money, yet others may > invent and use IPv7. We cannot know. > > This means that China may use IPv6, Uruguay may not. We see what people > decide, we cannot force them. They use translators if they wish. I want to > develop and test a new IPvX in my university and be reachable to the world, > who can say no? > > Not knowing what is good for others, not knowing the future, helps > technology develop. It also reduces our suffering because we do not try to > know the unknowable. > > > >> >> We first discuss the idea, then implement. >> >> The fact that there is running code doesn't mean that it is a good idea. >> >> >> >> But if it were, it would help to convince the sceptical like me. >> >> > I don't see why this would convince you. > > > >> Also, the fact that there is not running code could mean that the idea >> is impractical and infeasible. >> >> > No you can implement anything. Even the worst idea. > > Pars > > > >> Cheers, >> as >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Sep 2012, at 08:20, Pars Mutaf wrote: >>> >>> Discrete IP: >>> >>> 1. Can be a very good transition mechanism to worldwide IPv6 without >>> enforcement (meaning that we have no idea what is good for others) >>> >>> >>> Do you have some running code? >>> >>> 2. Can solve the IP transition problem forever. >>> >>> >>> Forgive for being sceptical of those all magical technologies that solve >>> all the problems of the world. Of course, if you had running code that >>> would change my view. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> as >>> >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
