>> You don't even have running code to be able to verify that your proposal >> actually works (it doesn't).
Do you have a running code to state this? Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, Khaled Omar wrote: > That’s why looking into the transitions solutions became a mandatory > or a peaceful solution such as IPv10 that will allow both version to > coexist and communicate until the full migration. No, any change now just resets the clock and postpones the transition by another 20 years. Meaningful support for IPv6 has been available in end-devices since the 2006-2008 timeframe when Windows Vista was released and around the same timeframe other end-user operating systems gained support as well. We're now in 2020 in a situation where basically every end user device in use has IPv6 support, even laggards like Smart TVs have started to gain IPv6 support. Printers have had IPv6 support for 10+ years. For your proposal, you have zero running code and thus zero devices supporting your proposal. You keep making these statements that upgrades are easy. They are not. Ecosystems take a long time to build. You don't even have running code to be able to verify that your proposal actually works (it doesn't). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
