Hi Mike,
If it is in the form of next generation IP (especially in the context
of upcoming 5G) we welcome the discussions on our list, 5Gangip,
5Gangip(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org to subscribe
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
Behcet
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Mike StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 12/14/2015 8:23 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:10:34 +0000 (UTC)
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
IP protocol version 5 is already defined and in usefor RFC1190, and
that use would have to be deprecatedfirst. Picking 7 is easier; for a
long time someoneon this list was pushing an idea of IPv8... and IPv9.
I believe the IPv8 you are referring to was hardly a serious proposal.
Regardless, 7, 8 and 9 were reserved for TP/IX, PIP and TUBA
respectively.
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml>
John
At this point I would suggest that the discussion on this topic has exceeded
the mandate for the list. I would suggest that creating a separate list and
announcing it and moving all further discussion on the specifics of this
proposal to that list would be appropriate.
At the beginning of this discussion the question was asked of why the
sergeant at arms threatened posting restriction. I wasn't actually
surprised at that PR warning as we've already got a replacement for IPv4 in
the form of IPv6. It took us over 20 years to get from initial discussions
to reasonable deployments and we're still working on it. The form of the
proposal - BCD representation of IP addresses as its best claim to fame -
initially led me to believe it was a troll proposal rather than something
serious. I now see the author believes it to be a serious proposal, but I
also believe that it's 20 years too late and provides no benefit over IPv6.
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but I'd really like not to read further
discussions about it on this list until there's something of a buy in from a
greater crowd.
Mike