Subject: IPmix.

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:44:20 +0000

Dear all,

Please consider the new proposal name "IPmix" as a temporary replacement instead of the IPv10 proposal name.

You can find the new modified IPmix text RFC version attached.

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 04:05:07 +0900

I fail to see how introduction of new IP version numbers and packet
formats will help anything at this point.  The operational timescales
involved are staggeringly long.

IPv6 deployment is certainly "unevenly distributed" at the moment, but
basically all the trends are "up and to the right".  See the World
IPv6 Launch measurements website as well as all the published data
from Akamai, APNIC, RIPE, and Google.  The following polynomial
extrapolations of Google data suggest that global IPv6 adoption will
be north of 20% by the end of 2017 and around 35% by the end of 2019:

    https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php?metric=p&timeforward=1280&timebackward=1280&country=ww

Bear in mind that those are global average numbers, and some countries
(hello Belgium) are already at 50%.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:10:50 +0100

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 05:44:20PM +0000,
 Khaled Omar <[email-masked]> wrote 

> You can find the new modified IPmix text RFC version attached.

Strange UTF-16 encoding... Well, once decoded, I can say that:

* you are very detailed when it comes of describing the current issues
and much less so when you describe your solution;

* the way I understand it (but there is zero high-level description
of IPmix, I rely mostly on the schemas):

   * everything is done by new gateways in both networks. What makes
   you think that IPv4-only networks will deploy these gateways, when
   they don't even deploy IPv6 (which is typically simpler)?

   * what do you thing will happen to the new IPmix packets in the
   core? Existing routers won't know what to do with them

Also, your proposal is extremely sketchy and seems to ignore
completely the issues which were discovered with the transition to
IPv6. For instance, some applications transmit IP addresses as payload
(which breaks things like NAT64). How do you address these?

Really, the problems of migrating the Internet to a new L3 protocol
have been discussed by many people in many years. It is unlikely that
a 8-pages proposal will suddenly solve them.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:08:17 +1100

> a 8-pages proposal will suddenly solve them.

A number of these sorts of proposals have been popping up in recent years.
They all seem to suffer from a lack of complete understanding about the
nature of the Internet protocols:

- forwarding in the network is stateless, meaning no details of past
forwarded packets are remembered once the packet is forwarded.

- nodes are peers of each other, meaning they can directly send and receive
packets to and from any other node on the network (i.e. *not* via an
intermediary device that translates addresses or adds options etc.),
security permitting, and can refer to themselves, to other nodes, by
providing their own IP address in upper layer protocol payloads.

IPv4 NAT breaks these properties. That's it's limitation. NATs are
vulnerable to state exhaustion (DoS) attacks because they're stateful, and
become performance and availability bottlenecks, because they force
hub-and- spoke communication.

Here's another example that suffers from these problems:

http://www.enhancedip.org

It would be good if IPv4 replacement aspirants who think they can do better
than IPv6 would read the following first:

"The Catenat Model for Internetworking"
RFC1958
RFC2993
RFC4924

Regards,
Mark.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------