>> 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:
I first read the IPv10 draft after the October discussions about it.
I would echo what others have said. In its current form I struggle to find any technological benefits in the proposal. It is deficient as a standalone L3 addressing scheme, and really more of another V4/V6 transition mechanism, but one that requires every device on the internet to be updated to support it.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 10:40 AM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
