Hi,
On 2020-8-12, at 7:27, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It’s really weird to hear the silence for my e-mails at the IETf main list,
you gave it not even four hours since your earlier email, which you posted in the middle of the night (European/US time). I am sure you will get feedback shortly (incl. mine below).
> As I proposed an I-D earlier that offers a solution to this pandemic that started to be distributed in the internet due to IPv4 address space exhaustion and the no migration to IPv6 occurred till now.
>
> So please take one moment and evaluate the IPv10 I-D and make an accurate decision whether it can be promoted to a Standard or there is another solution that could solve this problem from its roots.
This is not how the IETF operates. Please review RFC2026.
Regarding your proposal, briefly:
(1) A networking architecture consist of much more than a header encoding scheme - that is the easy part.
(2) Simply pointing to IPsec is not a security analysis.
(3) The I-D says "there is no need to think about migration" when there clearly is such a need - the I-D expects all hosts and routers to understand and speak a new packet format.
(4) This paragraph IMO demonstrates best how far from deployment realities the proposal is:
"IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed
in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs
(for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no
dependence on enterprise users and it is just a software
development process in the NIC cards of all hosts to allow
encapsulating both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same IP packet header."
Sorry, but this is unpublishable.
Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
