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)
On 25/9/20 06:07, Carsten Strotmann wrote: Hi, On 25 Sep 2020, at 8:50, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:59:25PM +, Khaled Omar wrote: As you know from the IPv10 I-D, it requires the network between hosts to be IPv4/IPv6 ready, so it still can be considered, as I still think that the movement to IPv6 still need some time and arrangement to get the best result for the coming generations. The transit networks are all ready today. If IPv6 is not available, it's the endpoints or the applications. I did a measurement of the use of IP protocols on a large (> 1M customers) DNS resolver in Germany in July. More than 2/3 of all DNS traffic from that resolver to the Internet was over IPv6, less than 1/3 over IPv4. At least for DNS, IPv6 is doing pretty good. Modulo fragmentation? ;-) Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Well, think of it like that, once all hosts support IPv10 (as all hosts now support IPv6) network engineers will cope up with the new header, because the destination will be from a different version, Old firewall configuration will be the same but new configuration will be addred because new IPv6 only devices will be on place (this is their normal job). >> Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when an IPv4 only host (and by that, I >> mean a host that cannot talk anything but plain vanilla IPv4) tries to talk >> to an IPv6 only host ? This host must be updated, no reason not to accept the updates. >> Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when one of your new format packets >> hits a router/firewall/load balancer/other network equipment that doesn't >> understand it ? These devices must be updated, that's why the word ALL answer all your questions. Khaled Omar -Original Message- From: Int-area On Behalf Of Simon Hobson Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:22 AM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: int-area 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) Khaled Omar wrote: > Ok, I have no energy to keep repeating, I'm sorry, read the full draft please > again. And therein lies a big part of your problem. Constantly repeating something which is incorrect does not make it correct - well not in our world anyway ! You can say "it's not a problem" as many times as you like, that does not make it so. People have tried to explain to you in many ways that upgrading hosts that are easy to upgrade is not the problem - that's mostly solved. Firewall rules/ACLs/etc do not stay the same - they must all be updated to cope with the new combinations of addresses that can be employed. Routers everywhere must be updated - believe it or not, IPv4 routers are usually hardware tied to the format of an IPv4 packet - they simply will not understand any other packet. And by requiring a different packet format end-end you are enforcing that your packet format cannot be used (reliably) until 100% of the internet has been upgraded. And as already said, pretty well all the changes needed to support your IPv10 are much the same as needed to support IPv6. But, with IPv6 once you get there then you've reached the end-game (IPv6) rather than having reached just a milestone on the way to IPv6. And there are migration options to handle "bits" (whether that's hosts, bits of the internet, services, whatever) that still can't manage IPv6. So, some specific questions you've been asked but refused to answer. I say refused, because saying "just read the draft again, you don't understand" is refusing to answer legitimate questions about what is in your draft. The questions asked show that people have looked at and understood your draft - they can see reasons why it cannot work, but you are failing to address those issues. Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when an IPv4 only host (and by that, I mean a host that cannot talk anything but plain vanilla IPv4) tries to talk to an IPv6 only host ? A: It fails. If you believe otherwise, please explain how it works - without requiring the host to be IPv10 capable. In reality (in the absence of network based migration techniques), it'll do an A lookup in DNS, get no result, and just fail. It won't know what to do with an record. Bonus answer: Explain how hosts that are no longer supported, or have hardware restrictions (limited RAM/ROM space), are owned/used by people who have no idea what a "firmware upgrade" is and have even less idea why they'd want to do one, etc get upgrades ? Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when one of your new format packets hits a router/firewall/load balancer/other network equipment that doesn't understand it ? A: The packet gets dropped. If it isn't an IPv4 packet, then an IPv4 device won't handle it - by definition, your IPv10 packets are not IPv4 packets. Your IPv10 host cannot communicate along that path. Thus it must fall back to trying either IPv4 or IPv6 - so it might as well have just used IPv4 or IPv6 in the first place. Again, if you believe my answer to be wrong, then explain in detail why - not just "you don't understand, read the draft again". Simon ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Khaled Omar wrote: > Ok, I have no energy to keep repeating, I'm sorry, read the full draft please > again. And therein lies a big part of your problem. Constantly repeating something which is incorrect does not make it correct - well not in our world anyway ! You can say "it's not a problem" as many times as you like, that does not make it so. People have tried to explain to you in many ways that upgrading hosts that are easy to upgrade is not the problem - that's mostly solved. Firewall rules/ACLs/etc do not stay the same - they must all be updated to cope with the new combinations of addresses that can be employed. Routers everywhere must be updated - believe it or not, IPv4 routers are usually hardware tied to the format of an IPv4 packet - they simply will not understand any other packet. And by requiring a different packet format end-end you are enforcing that your packet format cannot be used (reliably) until 100% of the internet has been upgraded. And as already said, pretty well all the changes needed to support your IPv10 are much the same as needed to support IPv6. But, with IPv6 once you get there then you've reached the end-game (IPv6) rather than having reached just a milestone on the way to IPv6. And there are migration options to handle "bits" (whether that's hosts, bits of the internet, services, whatever) that still can't manage IPv6. So, some specific questions you've been asked but refused to answer. I say refused, because saying "just read the draft again, you don't understand" is refusing to answer legitimate questions about what is in your draft. The questions asked show that people have looked at and understood your draft - they can see reasons why it cannot work, but you are failing to address those issues. Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when an IPv4 only host (and by that, I mean a host that cannot talk anything but plain vanilla IPv4) tries to talk to an IPv6 only host ? A: It fails. If you believe otherwise, please explain how it works - without requiring the host to be IPv10 capable. In reality (in the absence of network based migration techniques), it'll do an A lookup in DNS, get no result, and just fail. It won't know what to do with an record. Bonus answer: Explain how hosts that are no longer supported, or have hardware restrictions (limited RAM/ROM space), are owned/used by people who have no idea what a "firmware upgrade" is and have even less idea why they'd want to do one, etc get upgrades ? Q: In your IPv10 world, what happens when one of your new format packets hits a router/firewall/load balancer/other network equipment that doesn't understand it ? A: The packet gets dropped. If it isn't an IPv4 packet, then an IPv4 device won't handle it - by definition, your IPv10 packets are not IPv4 packets. Your IPv10 host cannot communicate along that path. Thus it must fall back to trying either IPv4 or IPv6 - so it might as well have just used IPv4 or IPv6 in the first place. Again, if you believe my answer to be wrong, then explain in detail why - not just "you don't understand, read the draft again". Simon ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ has some aggregated statistics. On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:19 PM Khaled Omar wrote: > I agree, but where we can found a live statistics other than Google to > keep tracking? > > Khaled Omar > > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 11:14 PM > To: Khaled Omar > Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > ; IPv6 Operations ; > int-area > 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 Sep 25, 2020, at 4:36 AM, Khaled Omar > wrote: > > > > Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper! > > I already wrote that white paper, in 2017. Numbers were a little > different, but take a look at: > > https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2017/state-of-ipv6-deployment-2017/ > > ___ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
I agree, but where we can found a live statistics other than Google to keep tracking? Khaled Omar -Original Message- From: Fred Baker Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 11:14 PM To: Khaled Omar Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; IPv6 Operations ; int-area 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 Sep 25, 2020, at 4:36 AM, Khaled Omar wrote: > > Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper! I already wrote that white paper, in 2017. Numbers were a little different, but take a look at: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2017/state-of-ipv6-deployment-2017/ ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
> On Sep 25, 2020, at 4:36 AM, Khaled Omar wrote: > > Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper! I already wrote that white paper, in 2017. Numbers were a little different, but take a look at: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2017/state-of-ipv6-deployment-2017/ ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Khaled, Am 25.09.20 um 17:13 schrieb Khaled Omar: > Ok, I have no energy to keep repeating, I'm sorry, read the full draft please > again. Be assured that I read the draft, but that does not solve the problem with your draft/proposal. Unless you see the contradiction I pointed out here, there is no common ground for ANY further discussion on this topic. Most of us may have different views on proposals, but at least no different views on logical inferences like this one. Roland > Khaled Omar > > -Original Message- > From: Bless, Roland (TM) > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:11 PM > To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson > > Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area > 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 16:41 schrieb Khaled Omar: >> Roland, the sending host will encapsulate an extension header with two >> different IP versions, where is the contradiction here? I don't see it. > > This is a bit sad, but probably one last try: > An IPv4-only host does only understand a single IP version, namely IPv4. > Inside an IPv4-only host there is NO understanding of a different packet > format (IPv10) or IP address format (neither IPv6 nor > IPv10) by definition. Consequently, it cannot encapsulate an IPv4 packet into > an IPv10 packet by lack of knowing the format and functionality. > Otherwise you have an IPv4/IPv10 _dual_ stack host, but that is then not an > IPv4-only host by definition. > > Regards > Roland > >> Khaled Omar >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Bless, Roland (TM) >> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM >> To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson >> >> Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area >> 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-1PC-2 >>++ ++ >>|| || >>|| || >>++ ++ >> // <---> // >> ++ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) ++ >> (3) >> IPv4-Only Host IPv6-Only Host >> >> Do you see the contradiction here? >> >> Roland >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson >>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM >>> To: Khaled Omar >>> Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area >>> 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Ok, I have no energy to keep repeating, I'm sorry, read the full draft please again. Khaled Omar -Original Message- From: Bless, Roland (TM) Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:11 PM To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area 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 16:41 schrieb Khaled Omar: > Roland, the sending host will encapsulate an extension header with two > different IP versions, where is the contradiction here? I don't see it. This is a bit sad, but probably one last try: An IPv4-only host does only understand a single IP version, namely IPv4. Inside an IPv4-only host there is NO understanding of a different packet format (IPv10) or IP address format (neither IPv6 nor IPv10) by definition. Consequently, it cannot encapsulate an IPv4 packet into an IPv10 packet by lack of knowing the format and functionality. Otherwise you have an IPv4/IPv10 _dual_ stack host, but that is then not an IPv4-only host by definition. Regards Roland > Khaled Omar > > -Original Message- > From: Bless, Roland (TM) > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM > To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson > > Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area > 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-1PC-2 >++ ++ >|| || >|| || >++ ++ > // <---> // > ++ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) ++ > (3) > IPv4-Only HostIPv6-Only Host > > Do you see the contradiction here? > > Roland > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mikael Abrahamsson >> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM >> To: Khaled Omar >> Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area >> 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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 16:41 schrieb Khaled Omar: > Roland, the sending host will encapsulate an extension header with two > different IP versions, where is the contradiction here? I don't see it. This is a bit sad, but probably one last try: An IPv4-only host does only understand a single IP version, namely IPv4. Inside an IPv4-only host there is NO understanding of a different packet format (IPv10) or IP address format (neither IPv6 nor IPv10) by definition. Consequently, it cannot encapsulate an IPv4 packet into an IPv10 packet by lack of knowing the format and functionality. Otherwise you have an IPv4/IPv10 _dual_ stack host, but that is then not an IPv4-only host by definition. Regards Roland > Khaled Omar > > -Original Message- > From: Bless, Roland (TM) > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM > To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson > > Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area > 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-1PC-2 >++ ++ >|| || >|| || >++ ++ > // <---> // > ++ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) ++ > (3) > IPv4-Only HostIPv6-Only Host > > Do you see the contradiction here? > > Roland > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mikael Abrahamsson >> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM >> To: Khaled Omar >> Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area >> 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
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) Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area 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-1PC-2 ++ ++ || || || || ++ ++ // <---> // ++ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) ++ (3) IPv4-Only HostIPv6-Only Host Do you see the contradiction here? Roland > -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM > To: Khaled Omar > Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area > 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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-1PC-2 ++ ++ || || || || ++ ++ // <---> // ++ IPv10 Header (Tunnel) ++ (3) IPv4-Only HostIPv6-Only Host Do you see the contradiction here? Roland > -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM > To: Khaled Omar > Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area > 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
>> 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 Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:43 PM To: Khaled Omar Cc: IPv6 Operations ; int-area 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 Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
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 Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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,
From the collection of statistics you all provided, I can come to a conclusion
that around an average of 40% of the world traffic became IPv6, which is still
something we cannot depend on as if you compare the time since IPv6 was firstly
deployed till now, I can expect that after +10 years we can come to 70 or 75%
world-wide, during this time we will have blocks of IPv6 only and blocks of
IPv4, which means the clear division.
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.
Khaled Omar
-Original Message-
From: Vasilenko Eduard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:15 PM
To: Fred Baker ; Khaled Omar
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; IPv6 Operations
; int-area
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)
Hi all,
Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper!
There is one recent WP on IPv6 status:
https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_WP35_IPv6_Best_Practices_Benefits_Transition_Challenges_and_the_Way_Forward.pdf
Where some additional facts could be found.
Eduard
> -Original Message-
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 0:45
> To: Khaled Omar
> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; IPv6
> Operations ; int-area
> 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 Sep 21, 2020, at 3:57 AM, Khaled Omar
> wrote:
> > Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that
> > shows the
> deployment so I can believe.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
>
> Sure. I'm using a site that Eric Vyncke has put together and can discuss with
> you.
> He uses Google (Erik Kline), Akamai (Jared Mauch), and APNIC (George
> Michelson/Geoff Huston) numbers; there are other services that publish
> statistics, he just hasn't included them. As of this instant, Google
> reports that requests that come to it from 73 countries exceed at
> least 5% of its workload from that country, and traffic from 37
> countries exceed 35% of its workload in that country. Its Eric's site,
> but the data is from Google, and the site can get you to Akamai and APNIC
> data as well for the price of a mouse-click.
>
> What I do is download the Google statistics, select the countries that
> exceed some cut-off, and then ask Eric's or APNIC's site to display the data.
>
> 5% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p=be,de
> ,in
> ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br,th,fi,mq,uy,gb,ec,ee,lk,ca,
> hu,ae,gp,re,
> nl,tt,ie,au,nz,pe,sa,ga,bo,ro,at,gt,no,ph,cz,sg,il,mo,pl,ar,sx,tg,si,n
> p,mm,om,bt,k r,ke,fo,co,md,zw,cg,pr,is,lv,am,se,ru,li,jo,sk
>
> 35% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p=be,de
> ,in ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br
>
> APNIC's display of its data on India is interesting
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1=1=1=30=IN
>
> If you scroll down, you will get a break-out by AS. APNIC reports that
> customers from 12 ASs use IPv6 when accessing APNIC with 50%+
> probability ("ipv6- capable" and carrying that amount of data), and
> given a choice of IPv6 or IPv4, most of them are "ipv6-preferred" (eg,
> use IPv6 when given a choice). But about
> 50 ASs actually have users *using* IPv6 for some subset of their
> workload. In a Financial Times blog a week or two ago, the chair of
> India's IPv6 deployment task force argued that it should have an
> IPv6-only DNS Root Server on the basis of its IPv6 deployment and
> usage. I disagree with him (remarks available on request; they only
> have 38 IPv6-capable root servers in country), but the basis for the argument
> was interesting.
>
> I think the APNIC data is interesting because it crosses the backbone.
> Google and Akamai run CDNs, which means that traffic can be between a
> residential subscriber and its CDN server without materially touching
> the ISP. APNIC runs no CDN, which means that traffic has to *also*
> traverse the ISP and the backbone to APNIC - there is and end-to-end path
> across the backbone. Think about this:
> when a user accesses a service using IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter),
> the packet has to go from his computer, IOT device, or telephone to
> the site in question and the response has to come back; there has to
> be a complete end-to-end path in each direction. Miss one IPv6
> connection in one direction, and it may as well be IPv4-only, beca
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, On 25 Sep 2020, at 8:50, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:59:25PM +, Khaled Omar wrote: As you know from the IPv10 I-D, it requires the network between hosts to be IPv4/IPv6 ready, so it still can be considered, as I still think that the movement to IPv6 still need some time and arrangement to get the best result for the coming generations. The transit networks are all ready today. If IPv6 is not available, it's the endpoints or the applications. I did a measurement of the use of IP protocols on a large (> 1M customers) DNS resolver in Germany in July. More than 2/3 of all DNS traffic from that resolver to the Internet was over IPv6, less than 1/3 over IPv4. At least for DNS, IPv6 is doing pretty good. Greetings Carsten ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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, On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:59:25PM +, Khaled Omar wrote: > As you know from the IPv10 I-D, it requires the network between hosts to be > IPv4/IPv6 ready, so it still can be considered, as I still think that the > movement to IPv6 still need some time and arrangement to get the best result > for the coming generations. The transit networks are all ready today. If IPv6 is not available, it's the endpoints or the applications. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Here is Egypt we have 3 or 4 Big Providers, I attended one of the trainings held by AFRINIC in 2016 about IPv6 and guys were still unfamiliar with IPv6, I encourage AFRINIC to do another visit to check it out with them to override the implications and for sure I will be there. They had concerns regarding the Link Locals addresses and SLAAC. Khaled Omar -Original Message- From: Fred Baker Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:14 AM To: Khaled Omar Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; IPv6 Operations ; int-area 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) Another link you may find interesting is https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1=1=1=30=EG. As you scroll down, you'll find that Egypt had very promising trial IPv6 service until early 2018. I don't know what happened then, but traffic plummeted dramatically, as if someone had simply turned it off. It might be worth your while to find out what happened. ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
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)
Another link you may find interesting is https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1=1=1=30=EG. As you scroll down, you'll find that Egypt had very promising trial IPv6 service until early 2018. I don't know what happened then, but traffic plummeted dramatically, as if someone had simply turned it off. It might be worth your while to find out what happened. ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
