>> I really think you should have a sample implementation. I’m not a code developer, really we are repeating same requirements, so what is the meaning of a work group?!!!!!
Khaled Omar From: Erik Kline <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:28 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:08 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
