Hi, Am 17.09.20 um 16:13 schrieb Khaled Omar: >>> 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 ?????!!!!!
Because it is contradictory in itself. Your drafts speaks of IPv4- and IPv6-only hosts, but your solution requires them to use and implement the IPv10/IPmix format, too. > IPv6 requires updating and migration. > IPv10 requires only updating. Yes, and everything: hosts and routers. Not simpler than for IPv6. > IPv6 took so long time. > IPv10 will take short time. Nope, that is a wish, since the complexity would be the same. > IPv6 is a new address structure. > IPv10 is a solution only. IPV10 also defines a new address format. > Other transitioning techniques requires so much translations and involvement > of the DNS in the communication process. > IPv10 doesn't requires neither. Because everything is IPv10-capable... > Other transitioning techniques requires training. > IPv10 requires no training. I agree with Stephane and repeat excerpts of my message from 2017 here: >> - Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you >> basically get an additional IPv10 deployment problem. >> - IPv10 doesn't allow an IPv6-only host to communicate to an IPv4-only >> host and vice versa as stated in the I-D. Hint: an IPv4-only host >> has got no idea what an IPv6 address is, let alone an "IPv10 address". >> - As others already pointed out: the proposal is technically flawed >> and does not work. >> ...>> Repeating this over and over again does not work. IMHO you only can >> move forward with a _technically sound_ proposal, otherwise many >> people will regard it as waste of time. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/oLszaOAMS5OgSxM0ECKwo-ClYDE/ > -----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. Regards Roland _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
