I concur with Nick Hilliard's comments on the v6ops thread: I really think you should have a sample implementation. A github repo with Linux kernel patches and some client and server apps that actually cause IPv10 packets to be sent on the wire would be a good starting point. Patches for tcpdump/wireshark to parse IPv10 would also be good.
Without the lessons learned from a working implementation it's not clear to me that this conversation can meaningfully advance. Even during IPng days, I believe, there was some BSD exploratory work: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1682 . On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:13 AM Khaled Omar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad > idea from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your > conclusion are all false. > > Why it is a bad idea ?????!!!!! > > IPv6 requires updating and migration. > IPv10 requires only updating. > > IPv6 took so long time. > IPv10 will take short time. > > IPv6 is a new address structure. > IPv10 is a solution only. > > Other transitioning techniques requires so much translations and > involvement of the DNS in the communication process. > IPv10 doesn't requires neither. > > Other transitioning techniques requires training. > IPv10 requires no training. > > Best regards, > > Khaled Omar > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:08 PM > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New > Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:58:21PM +0000, Khaled Omar < > [email protected]> wrote a message of 122 lines which said: > > > Most of the feedbacks I got are related to changing the draft name > > from IPv10 to any other name. > > No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea > from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your > conclusion are all false. > > No need to spend meeting time on it. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
