make "omar-ipv10" work at all would be better spent on making ipv6 work
better.
IPv6 took enough time for its deployment and the result is no full migration occured anf what RIRs are trying to do now is to make IPv4 only to be dual stack, IPv10 is in the hands of technology companies.
> KRP seems to require hierarchical routing, and hierarchical routing is
not how the internet works.
KRP is only an organized way of the Internet routers, and routing is based on the stored information (region number and ASN) in the IP itself, there is no hierarchical routing, it is a matter of choosing the best route for every traffic class.
Khaled
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Individual Draft Submissions.
From: Nick Hilliard
To: Mark Andrews
CC: Khaled Omar
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Well draft-omar-ipv10-XX and draft-omar-ipmix-XX provide NOTHING THAT IS NEW.
> You don’t even summarise the existing technology accurately. Traffic will
> switch over to IPv6. All that is required is time. Large amounts of traffic
> already goes from IPv6 hosts at one end to IPv4 hosts at the other end. Some
> of that is initiated from IPv4, some from IPv6. Most equipment that you buy
> today is IPv6 capable.
More to the point, draft-omar-ipv10 requires substantial protocol
updates on not just all operating systems but also all TCP/IP APIs and
applications, and the application level support is no more backwards
compatible than native ipv6 support.
This is not viable because the amount of time and effort required to
make "omar-ipv10" work at all would be better spent on making ipv6 work
better.
In practice, it means that even if draft-omar-ipv10 worked at a
technical level (and there are no working prototypes), it would be
undeployable.
> As for draft-omar-krp-XX, it is completely unrealistic. I suggest that you
> talk to network operators to understand why.
KRP seems to require hierarchical routing, and hierarchical routing is
not how the internet works.
In other words, both draft-omar-ipv10 and draft-omar-krp are unworkable.
This is why no-one is interested in discussing them in any of the
working groups.
Nick