>> The same IPv10 whose drafts you previously wanted removing from the drafts repository?
And regarding this question, yes, same draft.
From: Lloyd W [mailto:lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 12:44 AM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10.
Khaled
The same IPv10 whose drafts you previously wanted removing from the drafts repository?
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7pc66r2Kf83BfaHW4ZWIK9GfcBk/
that does not encourage others to look at your drafts.
Lloyd Wood
On 17 Apr 2021, at 03:29, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear IETFers,
I hope you are all fine,
I still see through my online research that the world still working on IPv4 and the migration to IPv6 will take longer than expected due to the slow movement towards IPv6.
We still have the opportunity here to discuss more transitioning solutions and I think I suggested one (IPv10 or IPmix) to help in solving this migration issue under the new administration of the IETF.
Best Regards,
Khaled Omar
Senior Network and Security Engineer
Mobile ): (EGY) (+2)-01003620284
E-mail *: eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx
Connect with me:
IPv6 isn't actually a 'protocol' as such. It is merely a data structure. It has a source address in a 128 bit domain and a destination address and a few flags and counters to stop loops, etc. and an extension mechanism allowing folk to throw pretty much anything else in.
Are you absolutely sure you can't achieve what you want inside the IPv6 regime? Because it is a ten year multi-billion dollar expense to change stuff at that level. You have an addressing scheme that can get you to give a unique address to every grain of sand. You have an extension scheme.
The interesting thing, the part that animates IPv6 is actually the routing tables and the technologies that maintain those are separate. You can tweak those without moving from IPv6.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 10:40 AM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
