Roland, the sending host will encapsulate an extension header with two different IP versions, where is the contradiction here? I don't see it.
Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Bless, Roland (TM) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]>; Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Hi Khaled, Am 25.09.20 um 15:04 schrieb Khaled Omar: >>> 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? How should one create running code out of a flawed specification? The following picture from your draft already shows that it definitely cannot work, thus no code needed: an IPv4-_only_ host by definition does NOT support IPv10 and thus CANNOT send any IPv10 tunnel packets. Same for an IPv6-_only_ host. IPv10 Host IPv10 Host PC-1 PC-2 +----+ +----+ | | | | | | | | +----+ +----+ / / <---------------------------------------> / / +----+ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) +----+ (3) IPv4-Only Host IPv6-Only Host Do you see the contradiction here? Roland > -----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). > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
