Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 07:28:30 -0400

On 9/30/17, 2:46 PM, "Int-area on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
wrote:

>Le 30/09/2017 à 13:39, Khaled Omar a écrit :
>>> and I'm not a software developer to test it by myself.
>>>> You are not.  But can you make their job easy?
>> 
>> I cannot do everything by myself, that’s why I'm discussing with the
>> IETF to make a group of participants working together to achieve the
>> same purpose which is IPmix.
>
>But before one can dream of getting a group, one must meet people at
>IETF face-to-face meetings.

Is that true? I had been led to believe that the IETF’s primary means of
getting work done was email, and that physical attendance was not
necessary for participation.

Lee

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 07:29:34 -0400

On 9/30/17, 12:59 PM, "Int-area on behalf of Andrew Sullivan"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>The fact that this topic won't go away from this list in which I am
>otherwise interested gives us a pragmatic reason to give it its own
>list.  Can we please do that so that I can stop hearing about this
>visit from either the Bad Idea Fairy or the Late Idea Fairy?

I’m sorry to disagree with you. A bad idea should not be allocated
resources; it should be quashed.

Lee

>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>-- 
>Andrew Sullivan
>[email-masked]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Int-area mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 07:37:25 -0400

On 9/30/17, 12:54 PM, "Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Tom,
>
>I agree with most of what you have said, but changing the way of
>encapsulation is not a hard work for running a code for all network
>devices and hosts to be able to understand the new packet.

That statement is insane.

You’re talking about updates to Microsoft Windows 10, 8, 7, and their sub
versions, Apple iOS (multiple versions), MacOS (multiple versions),
Android, ChromeOS, dozens of varieties of Unix (and *nix), plus all of the
separate lines of business supported by Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent,
Huawei, Nortel. . . every network device manufacturer. It would take
thousands of work hours for each of those to get developed, documented,
and tested.

And they’ll be buggy. So network operators will carefully test before they
roll it out.

If even one of those vendors is unconvinced about your protocol, it will
fail, because your protocol requires every device on the Internet to
support it.

>
>There is difference between deploying IPv6 and implementing IPv6, IPv6
>was deployed in almost all OSs and network devices in a short time, but
>implementing IPv6 by enterprises' users is the problem because there is a
>dependence on them, they have to do it by themselves.

How do you define “a short time”? Because I still encounter routers (home
gateways) without IPv6 support.

>
>For IPmix, there is only deployment process that will be done by
>technology companies, and enterprises' users will do nothing, they will
>keep using their version of IP and regardless of the version they are
>using, they will be able to access 100% of the Internet.

How will enterprise users’ enterprise networks get upgraded if the
enterprise operator doesn’t do it?

>
>Regarding running a code, there is no problem in that, a wg of people
>will make things easier than letting only one do it by himself,
>collaboration is requested.

We’re both still looking for someone who wants to collaborate with you.

Lee

>
>Khaled
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Int-area [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
>Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 6:43 PM
>To: Alexandre Petrescu
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.
>
>> That said, I agree with you that that the technical basis is to allow
>> encapsulate versions of IP in a same packet header.
>>
>This does not justify the statements that this protocol can be developed
>and deployed in a short time by technology companies.
>Deploying anything at Internet scale is hard, developing and deploying a
>new IP version is at least an order of magnitude harder. Even if you were
>to just change the version number of IPv4 and make no other changes to
>the protocol, it still would be a stunning amount of work that touches a
>myriad of devices and systems. End hosts need to change several ways, NIC
>HW needs to change to support protocol specific features, routers and
>switches need to be able to deal with new version which most likely will
>require hardware changes, middleboxes and firewalls need to deal with
>this, security needs to be fully considered. Monitoring and diagnostic
>tools need to change, management and administration need changes. But, on
>top of all that, there's no magic switch that can turn up this new IP
>version on all hosts and routers on the Internet instantaneously so we
>need to implement more backoffs like happy eyeballs. Sorry, there is just
>no easy path here; if there were it would have been applied
> to IPv6 long ago...
>
>> I would also rather say: the technical issue is how to use different
>> versions of IP in a same IP packet.
>>
>>>> Since the initial posting of the IPv10, I and and others have asked
>>>> several times for an implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this have to be tested because theoretically it works fine
>>
>>
>> I agree with you.  Many concepts are first imagined in someone's
>> mind, then sketched with a pencil on a paper, and discussed.  These
>> concepts work fine theoretically.
>>
>> Me too I can sketch a concept car on paper, but I doubt any
>> manufacturer will ever make one :-)  Because I dont know how to make
>>cars.
>>
>IETF is "rough consensus and running code". It's incumbent on the
>advocates of a proposed protocol to push for both of these. There's no
>concept that protocol experts bring their protocols to IETF and then
>throw over the wall to the protocol developers who happily go off and
>implement the spec. If you don't have the skills for implementation, then
>please find someone else to work with who can do it for you.
>
>Tom
>
>> Alex
>>
>>

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:50:05 +0900

On 30 September 2017 at 01:31, Khaled Omar <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
>
>
> The problem I’m trying to solve is to overcome the depletion of IPv4 address
> space and the lack of implementing IPv6 , this will cause the IPv6 only
> hosts not to be able to access the whole internet as there will be IPv6 only
> hosts (18% of the Internet traffic) against the domination of IPv4 only
> hosts (82% of the Internet traffic),

(dare I ask) Where does this 18% number come from?

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 15:07:50 -0400

> resources; it should be quashed.

My proposal is to quash it by giving it its own rock under which it
can be hidden.  Right now, it is being allocated resources anyway: the
time and attention of everyone on this list who would like to pay
attention to less-absurd proposals than "reformat and reinstall the
Internet".  There is no evidence that that proposal, which has now
been discussed for a long time and the disadvantages of which have
been amply demonstrated to everyone except the proposal's proponent,
is going to go away any time soon.  Compared to the resources that are
currently being wasted on it, a list seems a small price to pay.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Gabor LENCSE <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:09:25 +0900

Hi Andrew,

Whereas I agree with your arguments, I would like to point out that the 
creation of an IETF mailing list may be interpreted as an endorsement of 
the concept. (As it has already happened with the existence of an 
Internet Draft about IPv10. Lay people did not recognized that it was an 
individual draft not adopted by any IETF working groups.)

Therefore, I recommend the usage of an IETF independent mailing list, 
which can be advertised (only once!) here, and those who are interested 
may subscribe and continue the discussion over there. (E.g. 
[email-masked] could do.)

Best regards,

Gabor

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:44:51 -0700

> currently being wasted on it, a list seems a small price to pay.
Andrew,

Why not follow the normal process of any other proposal brought before
IETF? If you look at the beginning of this thread, most of the
discussion was the result of a specific and quite relevant question to
the author raised by the AD (Suresh). The author responded to the
question and then several in community responded mostly questioning
the validity of the assumptions in the response. I would assume the
next step is for the AD to make the determination whether there is
enough consensus to continue any discussion about the proposal either
on this list or as a separate mailing list.

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 00:13:50 -0400

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 06:44:51PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> IETF?

Because this draft has already been brought before the IETF, and
rejected as at best too late and at worst a bad idea (actually, that's
not the worst evaluation, but I don't wish to sound mean).

I have a proposal for the chairs: solicit interest in pursuing the
topic by asking for prospective subscribers to a mailing list to
discuss the draft/concept.  If you get (say) 20, then it's a topic,
and it gets its list.  If not, then it gets no list.  Regardless, the
topic is, after that call for interest, ruled off-topic for this list,
and a PR-worthy offense if it is raised here.

The IETF list sergeants-at-arms may make independent rulings about
discussion there.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:38:17 -0800

On 10/1/17 8:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> and it gets its list. 

I'd add that there is nothing at all stopping these folks from
setting up a mailing list or online group elsewhere and having
at it.  Indeed, I think right now the only way this could
possibly progress would be if the author and other advocates
went off on their own for a bit and cleaned it up (a lot) without
the continuing badgeration of IETF mailing lists.

Melinda

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 22:01:49 -0700

I could not agree more, and wish the author would do that.  I will even offer mailing list service at no cost on my own server if the interested parties say they will take it up.  (Best efforts QoS and all that.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 21:38, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 01:10:37 -0400

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1 Andrew and Melinda. This sounds like a workable plan. I will discuss with the chairs and get this kicked off.

Regards
Suresh

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:35:44 +0000

Hi Lee,

> Is that true? I had been led to believe that the IETF’s primary means of getting work done was email, and that physical attendance was not necessary for participation.

I prefer email communication as it will be easier for me, but face-to-face meeting will make things go faster after meeting and knowing people physically.

If the remote participation will be successful, people can see the remote presenter on cam so physical meeting is not that important but it still adds something to the discussion.

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 1:29 PM
To: Alexandre Petrescu; Khaled Omar
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

>IETF face-to-face meetings.

Is that true? I had been led to believe that the IETF’s primary means of getting work done was email, and that physical attendance was not necessary for participation.

Lee

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:45:36 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled Omar 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 11:43 AM
To: 'Lee Howard'
Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

Lee, 

> You’re talking about updates to Microsoft Windows 10, 8, 7, and their sub versions, Apple iOS (multiple versions), MacOS (multiple versions), Android, ChromeOS, dozens of varieties of Unix (and *nix), plus all of the separate lines of business supported by Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent, Huawei, Nortel. . . every network device manufacturer. It would take thousands of work hours for each of those to get developed, documented, and tested.

The number of technology companies and their OSs you listed is between 10 to 15 company, the software updates will take some time but of course not the same time as waiting enterprises globally to migrate to IPv6.

> If even one of those vendors is unconvinced about your protocol, it will fail, because your protocol requires every device on the Internet to support it.

True fact.

A short time can be a year, and regarding routers/modems at homes will require firmware upgrade or replacement.

> How will enterprise users’ enterprise networks get upgraded if the enterprise operator doesn’t do it?

They have to accept that updates to be able to connect to the Internet which is an easy task to do.

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Khaled Omar; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

You’re talking about updates to Microsoft Windows 10, 8, 7, and their sub versions, Apple iOS (multiple versions), MacOS (multiple versions), Android, ChromeOS, dozens of varieties of Unix (and *nix), plus all of the separate lines of business supported by Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent, Huawei, Nortel. . . every network device manufacturer. It would take thousands of work hours for each of those to get developed, documented, and tested.

And they’ll be buggy. So network operators will carefully test before they roll it out.

If even one of those vendors is unconvinced about your protocol, it will fail, because your protocol requires every device on the Internet to support it.

>implementing IPv6 by enterprises' users is the problem because there is 
>a dependence on them, they have to do it by themselves.

>using, they will be able to access 100% of the Internet.

How will enterprise users’ enterprise networks get upgraded if the enterprise operator doesn’t do it?

Lee

>This does not justify the statements that this protocol can be 
>developed and deployed in a short time by technology companies.
>Deploying anything at Internet scale is hard, developing and deploying 
>a new IP version is at least an order of magnitude harder. Even if you 
>were to just change the version number of IPv4 and make no other 
>changes to the protocol, it still would be a stunning amount of work 
>that touches a myriad of devices and systems. End hosts need to change 
>several ways, NIC HW needs to change to support protocol specific 
>features, routers and switches need to be able to deal with new version 
>which most likely will require hardware changes, middleboxes and 
>firewalls need to deal with this, security needs to be fully 
>considered. Monitoring and diagnostic tools need to change, management 
>and administration need changes. But, on top of all that, there's no 
>magic switch that can turn up this new IP version on all hosts and 
>routers on the Internet instantaneously so we need to implement more 
>backoffs like happy eyeballs. Sorry, there is just no easy path here; 
>if there were it would have been applied  to IPv6 long ago...
>
>implement the spec. If you don't have the skills for implementation, 
>then please find someone else to work with who can do it for you.
>
>Tom
>
>> Alex
>>
>>

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:03:20 +0000

> (dare I ask) Where does this 18% number come from?

From Google IPv6 Adoption
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption&tab=ipv6-adoption

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 23:01:29 +0900

I suspected as much.

I am one of the original authors of that experiment, and of the code
that generates, collects, analyzes, and presents it.  I can tell you,
paraphrasing The Princess Bride, that that number does not mean what
you think it means.

Those ~20% of Google users all have *** both IPv4 and IPv6 ***.  In
other words, roughly 1/5th of all Google users have dualstack Internet
access to Google.

These data do not support any interpretation that there is an
IPv6-only user problem to be solved.

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 08:31:18 -0700

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Khaled Omar <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  
> 

Again, the same question: why would your thing get adopted faster than IPv6?

> A short time can be a year, and regarding routers/modems at homes will require firmware upgrade or replacement.

This is completely out of touch with reality. 
Routers don't get updates. There's no money in updating software once the device is sold. 
Replacing them would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. 

> They have to accept that updates to be able to connect to the Internet which is an easy task to do.

Why would they accept your proposal over IPv6?

I'm getting tired of having the same conversation with you. I've tried very hard to be reasonable and to encourage you to participate, but you have to drop this. There is no support for it, and it won't work. Please work on something else. 

Lee

> You’re talking about updates to Microsoft Windows 10, 8, 7, and their sub versions, Apple iOS (multiple versions), MacOS (multiple versions), Android, ChromeOS, dozens of varieties

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:58:35 +0000

> Again, the same question: why would your thing get adopted faster than IPv6?

Because of dependence, IPv6 depends on all enterprises to migrate, IPmix depends on technology companies only (little number).

The same with IPv6, if home routers is not supporting IPv6 then it has to be replaced.

> Why would they accept your proposal over IPv6?

Because they did nothing regarding the migration, and it is simpler task to do.

Best regards,

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 5:31 PM
To: Khaled Omar
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: FW: Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

Sent from my iPhone

Lee

> You’re talking about updates to Microsoft Windows 10, 8, 7, and their 
> sub versions, Apple iOS (multiple versions), MacOS (multiple 
> versions), Android, ChromeOS, dozens of varieties

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:01:43 +0000

We are trying to be optimistic regarding the migration process and give it more than it is actually is, new hosts are IPv6 only hosts as there is no more IPv4 addresses to allocate, these new enterprises will suffer. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Kline [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Khaled Omar
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

I suspected as much.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 11:42:55 -0700

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 10:10 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I agree as well.

Bob

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:28:53 +0200

> the continuing badgeration of IETF mailing lists.

I agree.

Alex