Dear Omar,
Am 30.03.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Khaled Omar:
> I think all of you now know about IPv10 and what is the problem and how
> IPv10 can solve it and how it can be deployed in a short time.
- Your IPv10 proposal doesn't solve the IPv6 deployment problems, you
basically get an additional IPv
Hi Mikael,
thanks for clarifying again, everything +1!
Regards,
Roland
Am 31.03.2017 um 08:17 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Khaled Omar wrote:
>
>> You can read the IPv10 I-D again and all your concerns will be
>> obvious, I don't mind if you have already a series of new
Hi,
Am 17.09.20 um 16:13 schrieb Khaled Omar:
>>> No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea
>>> from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your
>>> conclusion are all false.
>
> Why it is a bad idea ?!
Because it is contradictory in its
Hi Khaled,
Am 25.09.20 um 15:04 schrieb Khaled Omar:
>>> You don't even have running code to be able to verify that your proposal
>>> actually works (it doesn't).
>
> Do you have a running code to state this?
How should one create running code out of a flawed specification?
The following pictur
nctionality.
Otherwise you have an IPv4/IPv10 _dual_ stack host, but that
is then not an IPv4-only host by definition.
Regards
Roland
> Khaled Omar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bless, Roland (TM)
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:38 PM
> To: Khaled Omar ; Mikael Abrahams
here, there is no common ground for ANY further discussion on this
topic. Most of us may have different views on proposals, but at least
no different views on logical inferences like this one.
Roland
> Khaled Omar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bless, Roland (TM)
> Sent:
Hi Jens,
I'm not sure about your requirements. I think that identifiers for AAA
can be unique and static on their "layer" and do not need to coincide
with network addresses. So if you just want to be sure that you are
talking to the right node, some UUID or public key hash should be fine
for AA
Hi Luigi,
a related question would also be:
how much addressing semantics/context is required for performing (a) the
forwarding and/or (b) the routing decision inside a node?
Regards,
Roland
On 30.09.22 at 10:36 Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi All,
During the last INTArea meeting the discussion on
Hi Luigi,
see inline.
On 05.10.22 at 10:14 Luigi IANNONE wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Int-area On Behalf Of Bless, Roland (TM)
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2022 18:08
To: Luigi Iannone; int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion
Hi Luigi,
a related question
Hi Luigi,
sorry, I messed up the text in the first paragraph somehow, now corrected.
On 06.10.22 at 11:32 Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
Hi Luigi,
see inline.
On 05.10.22 at 10:14 Luigi IANNONE wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Int-area On Behalf Of Bless, Roland (TM)
Sent: Tuesday, 4
Hi Fred,
I'm somewhat confused and it would be good to clearly formulate which
problem you are trying to solve (Hi Radia!).
Requiring to turn off checksumming of Ethernet Frames may be useful
for the particular _solution_ you propose, but this usually does not
apply to all links in the Internet.
11 matches
Mail list logo
