Hi Mikael, thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!
Regards, Roland Am 31.03.2017 um 08:17 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar wrote: > >> You can read the IPv10 I-D again and all your concerns will be >> obvious, I don't mind if you have already a series of new questions >> that will add a new value to the discussion but the time to deploy >> IPv10 is an important factor. >> >> We need consensus after understanding how IPv10 works and how it will >> be deployed. > > As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been > interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000. > > Let me give you an IPv6 deployment timeline: > > Standards were worked out in the mid 90-ties, afterwards operating > system vendors started working on it and "real" support started cropping > up in the early to mid 2000:nds, with a large milestone being Windows > Vista in 2006, where as far as I know this was the first widely used > consumer operating system to implement this. It then took until Windows > 7 timeframe around 2010 before people started moving off of Windows XP > in ernest, and we're still seeing Windows XP in non-trivial numbers. So > now in 2017 we're seeing most operating systems have comprehensive > (albeit perhaps not as well-tested as we would like) support for IPv6, > where the application ecosystem still has a way to go. We're still > working on better APIs to handle the dual-stackedness problem. > > Most likely, even if Microsoft could be convinced that IPv10 is > something they need to support, this would only happen in Windows 10. > Then we have the rest of the ecosystem with access routers, load > balancers, SAVI-functionality for BCP38 compliance in access devices, > core routers etc. Most of these will require a hardware fork-lift in > order to support your proposal, because they do not forward packets in a > CPU, they forward it in purpose-designed hardware that is a lot less > flexible in what they can do. > > So even if we all united now (which won't happen) around your IPv10 > proposal, it would take 5-10 years before the first devices out on the > market had support for it. Probably 5-10 years after that before support > is widely available. > > IPv10 would delay and confuse deployment of something that is not IPv4. > While IPv6 is not perfect, there are now hundreds of millions of devices > on the Internet with IPv6 access. It's proven to work, it's not perfect, > but we have a decently good idea what to do to make it better. > > IPv10 is only injecting FUD into where we need to go debate, which is > IPv6 deployment for all. > > Please stop. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
