On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> wrote: >> "all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task"... >>>What makes you think it is ever an easy task to get all OSes to uniformly >>>support anything? Please provide an implementation so we can evaluate the >>>prospects. > > For the 2nd time: > > "I shouldn't list all devices that need to support IPv10, simply, anything > will process a L3 packet, should understand that the IPv10 packet can contain > a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses." > I don't know what "anything will process an L3 packet" means. Please answer directly: does this proposal need changes in every OS or not?
> > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:19 PM > To: Khaled Omar > Cc: Bless, Roland (TM); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been >>> interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000. >> >> FYI, IPv10 will allow IPv4 to communicate to IPv6 and vice versa, how can it >> be interesting if it was presented before IPv6 was even developed ! >> >>> 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. >> >> Please, let's not be against ourselves, all OSs will be updated to support >> IPv10 which is an easy task, OSs will not require support for a new IP >> version like IPv6, they will just be enabled to support the encapsulation of >> both version on the same L3 packet header. > > "all OSs will be updated to support IPv10 which is an easy task"... > What makes you think it is ever an easy task to get all OSes to uniformly > support anything? Please provide an implementation so we can evaluate the > prospects. > > Tom > >> >> Also, networking devices will be upgraded to understand the new IPv10 >> packet, I said earlier I don't mind If the process will take some time but >> we should eventually reach consensus, I shouldn't list all devices that need >> to support IPv10, simply, anything will process a L3 packet, should >> understand that the IPv10 packet can contain a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 >> addresses. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bless, >> Roland (TM) >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:51 AM >> To: Mikael Abrahamsson >> Cc: int-area >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion. >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
