Subject: IPv10.

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:38:36 +0000

Hi everyone,

Is there anything we can add to the IPv10 draft or the standard will be the same as the draft?

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:01:33 +0900

Where's the draft?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:11:43 -0500 (EST)

> Is there anything we can add to the IPv10 draft or the standard will be the

Legitimacy and usefulness would help.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:18:26 +0000

IPv10 is taken already…
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2009/workshops/rearch/papers/Carlberg.pdf

Tim

On 15 Nov 2016, at 06:01, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Where's the draft?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Khaled Omar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

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

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:29:51 +0000

I see only the name is taken by this draft, but totally different details.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: IPv10.
From: Tim Chown
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
CC: Khaled Omar ,"[email-masked] " ,[email-masked]

IPv10 is taken already…

Tim

Where's the draft?

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:42:12 +0900

> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2009/workshops/rearch/papers/Carlberg.pdf

http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml

>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Khaled Omar
>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Is there anything we can add to the IPv10 draft or the standard
>>     will be the same as the draft?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Best regards,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Khaled Omar____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:03:46 +0000

On 15 Nov 2016, at 06:42, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

OK, so not THAT taken ;)

Tim

Tim

On 15 Nov 2016, at 06:01, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Where's the draft?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Khaled Omar
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

   Hi everyone,____

   __ __

   __ __

   Best regards,____

   __ __

   Khaled Omar____

   __ __

   __ __

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

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:54:39 +0100

Khaled,

I understand that irony, sarcasm, and implicit statements can get lost
in translation; as such, I wanted to reply once in no uncertain terms
to avoid any confusion.

Your proposal will not become a RFC.

It uses a technique which was actively removed from the standard and
even if that was not the case, it's way too late. We took ~20 years to
get to the level of IPv6 adoption we have today. Any gains made during
that time would be removed with any, even partial, technology reset.
And this ignores the fact that IPv4 is almost at the end of its useful
life and will largely be replaced; prolonging that process is not in
the interest of the IETF nor of the networking community.

While you are free to follow the process of writing and submitting an
actual ID, believe me when I say that this will not become a RFC.

Richard

---

From: Octavio Alvarez <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:09:54 -0800

> Is there anything we can add to the IPv10 draft or the standard will be

How do you plan to have an IPv4-only (no IPv10) host to communicate with
an IPv6-only (no IPv10) host?

Best regards.