On 12 November 2016 at 09:45, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 12/11/2016 03:51, Emily Shepherd wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:38:34PM +0000, Khaled Omar wrote:
You can find the latest version of the IPv10 draft attached in this e-mail.
This looks fairly similar to just using a IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
within an IPv6 packet [RFC4038]; is there a nuance I'm missing here?
Not a big one. Using version number 10 isn't necessary; these could
be standard IPv6 packets. But of course it doesn't solve the basic problem
that makes dual-stack or a middlebox of some kind essential: an unmodified
IPv4 host can't talk to an IPv6 host, or an IPv10 host, because it doesn't
understand the new packet format. So this solution does nothing for backwards
compatibility, unfortunately.
I've thought it can be useful to think about how hard this problem is
to solve in a different context.
Imagine you wanted to achieve perfect translation between two spoken
languages, meaning no lost of any meaning at all after translation,
including nuance, and one of the languages only has 10% or less of the
words the other does.
Trying to translate between IPv4 and IPv6 perfectly is the same sort of problem.
Regards,
Mark.