Subject: IPv10.

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:08:12 +0000

Hi all IETF members and the discussion panel,

Hope you are all fine,

I wish I'm not bothering you by my e-mails, but all what I'm asking you is to find a free time on your calendars so we can discuss, suggest, and participate in making the final version of the IPv10 draft and start experimenting its work, and once it will work efficiently and we find that it will bring a great value to the Internet, it can be standardized by the IETF.

I'm not in rush in this sequence of work (maybe you have another sequence as I'm new to the IETF mailing list) but I'm curious to receive comments, suggestions, and modifications that will make a progress and eventually bring a value to the Internet.

Thanks for welcoming me,

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:29:19 +0900

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:08:12PM +0000,
 Khaled Omar <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 111 lines which said:

> in making the final version of the IPv10 draft

Where is the current version?
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=ipv10&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&by=group&group=>
finds nothing. On <http://internetprotocolv10.blogspot.jp/>, there is
a just one short blog post, without any detail.

> I'm curious to receive comments, suggestions, and modifications

Today, there are not enough substance in this proposal to allow any
commenting.

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:33:36 +0100

Hi Khaled,

> I wish I’m not bothering you by my e-mails, but all what I’m asking you
> is to find a free time on your calendars so we can discuss, suggest, and
> participate in making the final version of the IPv10 draft and start
> experimenting its work, and once it will work efficiently and we find
> that it will bring a great value to the Internet, it can be standardized
> by the IETF.

Most of the time :-) the IETF works problem oriented.
Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal
for a problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.
I have not understood the point of your solution either,
it looks like having IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Addresses in
an IPv6 header. Such solutions were considered as
not being useful long time ago.

Suggestion:
- Check the material for newcomers to the IETF
  https://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html
- Describe the problem that you want to solve
  in an individual Internet-Draft (I-D) https://www.ietf.org/id-info/
  along with a statement why existing technologies
  do not solve it sufficiently, probably also give a
  sketch of your solution. The I-D is accessible by
  everyone from a central repository.
- You can then solicit discussion of the I-D on certain
  mailing lists that are related to the topic.

Coming back to your proposal, the statement
"IPv10 allows hosts from two IP versions to be able to communicate, and
this can be accomplished by having an IPv10 packet containing a mixture
of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same IP packet header."
is contradictory in itself since neither IPv4-_only_ nor IPv6-only_
hosts will understand your "new" IPv10 format by definition.

Best regards,
 Roland

---

From: Antonio Prado <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:42:21 +0100

On 11/11/16 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar wrote:
> I’m curious to receive comments

hi,

well I don't dislike the name: IPv10 sounds okay to me

--
antonio

---

From: Musa Stephen Honlue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:21:40 +0400

Hi Khaled I read your blog post and are curious to see what value we gain
in trying to save the IPv4 pool.
Correct me if I didn't understand the problem you are addressing with this
new IP standard.

On Nov 11, 2016 17:08, "Khaled Omar" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I wish I’m not bothering you by my e-mails, but all what I’m asking you is
> to find a free time on your calendars so we can discuss, suggest, and
> experimenting its work, and once it will work efficiently and we find that
> it will bring a great value to the Internet, it can be standardized by the
> IETF.
>
>
>
> I’m not in rush in this sequence of work (maybe you have another sequence
> as I’m new to the IETF mailing list) but I’m curious to receive comments,
> suggestions, and modifications that will make a progress and eventually
> bring a value to the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thanks for welcoming me,
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

---

From: James R Cutler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:43:04 -0500

> I’m curious to receive comments

I did not know we had given up on IPv8.

(I’m not that James)
James R. Cutler
[email-masked]
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:50:51 +0000

I was curious to receive comments and suggestions regarding improving the IPv10 role through your expertise, not to receive comments regarding that this function has no value, and I’m trying to solve a problem that is not existing.

Khaled Omar (Independent)

From: James R Cutler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Khaled Omar; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

(I’m not that James)
James R. Cutler
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:15:21 +0900

> for a problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.

how about ipv4 and ipv6 are incompatible on the wire and this
has created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:43:09 +1300

> has created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot?

Yes, I suggest mentioning that to Vint, Bob and a few others in 1977,
so that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in
2016 will be grateful.

   Brian

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:58:39 +1100

> so that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in

It looks like the first version of TCP from 1974 had them.

"SPECIFICATION OF INTERNET TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM"
https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc675.txt

"4 bits: Length of destination network address in 4 bit units (current
   value is 1)

   4 bits: Destination network address

      1010-1111 are addresses of ARPANET, UCL, CYCLADES, NPL, CADC, and
      EPSS respectively.

 ...

   4 bits: length of source network address in 4 bit units (current
   value is 1)

   4 bits: source network address (as for destination address)"

or up to 60 bit addresses.

>From what I've read, there were proposals to do variable length
addresses in IPv6 as CLNS did, however there was a concern that it
would be harder to cope with them in hardware, and the observation
that even though CLNS supported them, everybody just used the same
length.

More recently, I've heard of few organisations here in .au that have
run out of RFC1918s because they've been using /24s everywhere -
previously I only knew of Comcast running out for their cable modem
management network. I've also seen /24s universally being
"unnecessarily" used in virtual networks used to build virtual server
stacks.

It seems most people will choose simple and consistent when they can
even though it is less efficient. There's operational value in that -
if all subnets are /24s or /64s, then one with an incorrect length
sticks out like a sore thumb. Less variables means less opportunity
for error and errors being far more obvious.

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: "Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 08:17:43 +0100

Jon Postel will swizel in his grave if v10 is not assigned by IANA first.
Let's not confuse the market. A working group at ETSI has been formed 6
months ago called NGP ( Next Gereation Protocols) lashing at v4 and v6 to
invent a new one.  Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10
space :-)

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
To: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Cc: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

On 12/11/2016 14:15, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal for a 
>> problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.
> 
> how about ipv4 and ipv6 are incompatible on the wire and this has 
> created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot?

Yes, I suggest mentioning that to Vint, Bob and a few others in 1977, so
that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in
2016 will be grateful.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 09:04:12 +1300

Hi Latif,

On 12/11/2016 20:17, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote:
> invent a new one.  

How incredibly foolish of them.

   Brian

> Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10
> space :-)
> 
> Latif
>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:05:58 -0500

but consistent?

Scott

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Latif,
>

---

From: "Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 21:23:49 +0100

http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/next-generation-protocols

I guess a rebuttal is still possible.

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:04
To: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[email-masked]>; 'Randy Bush' <[email-masked]>
Cc: 'Khaled Omar' <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

Hi Latif,

On 12/11/2016 20:17, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote:
> Let's not confuse the market. A working group at ETSI has been formed 
> 6 months ago called NGP ( Next Gereation Protocols) lashing at v4 and 
> v6 to invent a new one.

   Brian

> Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10 space :-)
> 
> Latif
>

---

From: "Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 21:27:29 +0100

The IETF/3GPP endorsement agreement can be used to stop them as it clearly
states that ETSI should not be involved in IETF work but just endorse it.

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

but consistent?

Scott

---

From: "Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 21:40:47 +0100

The next one to look into is the new NGI initiative of the European
Commission to start working on new Internet protocols, although this is just
research, after the failure of the Future Internet research program and GENI
in the US (though Openflow was funded at Stanford) so not really a threat
but could be used to put some sanity in researchers in quest of inventing
something new :-)

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/next-generation-internet-initi
ative

https://twitter.com/NGI4eu

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Latif LADID
[IPv6-based Internet]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:27
To: 'Scott O. Bradner' <[email-masked]>; 'IETF discussion list'
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv10.

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

but consistent?

Scott

---

From: "Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:02:52 +0100

3GPP-IETF Standardization Collaboration
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3113

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Latif LADID
[IPv6-based Internet]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:24
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <[email-masked]>; 'Randy Bush'
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Khaled Omar' <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv10.

http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/next-generation-proto
cols

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:04
To: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <[email-masked]>; 'Randy Bush'
<[email-masked]>
Cc: 'Khaled Omar' <[email-masked]>; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv10.

Hi Latif,

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:50:51 +1300

I believe it can all be safely ignored, but it does seem like a silly
waste of resources that they bother to work on it at all.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:25:12 +0000

While I have yet to see any fleshy details, it does sound similar to my
idea which got thrown out (IPv6 targets direct from IPv4 using header
options and not tunnelling) I believe I still have a bet to collect
regarding IPv6 uptake though ;)

Peter

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:41:23 +0900

Safely ignored yes and no.

Yes, it is daring to design another IP version and expect native 
deployment beyond a laboratory setting any time soon.

At the same time, this EU effort may be attractive for people building 
project proposals where IPv6 is named explicitely.  Tinkering with 
alternative addressing and routing mechanisms may lead to solutions that 
could be retrofitted to solve existing problems in IPv6 like the lack of 
mobility, qos, security...

ITU also has a Next Generation Networks Global Standards Initiative 
since 2015.

A China effort proposed an IPv9 at some point, IIRC.

Alex