Hi Zartash,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Zartash Afzal Uzmi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zartash@lums.edu.pk" target="_blank">zartash@lums.edu.pk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Pars,<br>
<br>
If you are an end user, your "application" should be able to "talk" to anyone if your network uses IPv4 and their network uses IPv6. At the network layer, there must be "someone" in the middle who can understand both versions. This someone could be any router at a service provider and as an end user, all you would need to worry about is to be able to connect to your service provider. </blockquote>
<div><br><br>So regarding your and Andrew's responses I got the answer to my question. We should be able to use any IP version. But I don't understand how can we do this in the current TCP/IP protocol suite.<br><br>
Currently there are tunnel brokers, clearly not a real solution. Not easy to use, not efficient and I have to install IPv6.<br><br>Cheers, <br>Pars<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
So, for example, if your provider only has an IPv6 network, then yes your end host is restricted to use IPv6.<br>
<br>
There are situations (not rare, these days) when a service provider will allow end-user connectivity either through IPv4 or IPv6. So, it is up to the provider how they connect to the other service providers (IPv6 or IPv4 or any other version).<br>
<br>
If you are a service provider, and do not support IPv6, then you can not "directly" connect with another provider who only supports IPv6. But then, you might be going through yet another larger service provider who would support both versions.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Zartash<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: <a href="mailto:end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org">end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org</a> [<a href="mailto:end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org">end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org</a>] On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf [<a href="mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:38 AM<br>
To: Lachlan Andrew<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:end2end-interest@postel.org">end2end-interest@postel.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [e2e] Discrete IP<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Hi Andrew,<br>
<br>
China has IPv6 for example but I cannot talk to them.<br>
I don't have to install IPv6 to talk to them. If one day someone uses IPv7 (it is their right), I don't have to install IPv7.<br>
The fact that there is a version field doesn't mean that all versions are supported.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Lachlan Andrew <<a href="mailto:lachlan.andrew@gmail.com">lachlan.andrew@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:lachlan.andrew@gmail.com">lachlan.andrew@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
Greetings Pars,<br>
<br>
I think that what you are describing is actually the way the Internet<br>
works. The "version" field in the IP header allows different users to<br>
run different versions over the same network.<br>
<br>
The IETF does not, and cannot, mandate that people use IPv6; that is<br>
why most people still do not use it.<br>
<br>
The reason that the routers need to be changed is that the process of<br>
routing requires them to know the address the packet is being sent to.<br>
The way this address is represented depends on the version of IP, and<br>
so whatever version of IP is used must be supported by (some of) the<br>
routers.<br>
<br>
I hope this removes some confusion.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Lachlan<br>
<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">On 12 September 2012 18:06, Pars Mutaf <<a href="mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> Dear colleagues,<br>
><br>
> I believe that the next step in IP's evolution would not be IPv6. It would<br>
> be "Discrete IP" allowing any IP version.<br>
> I concluded that Discrete IP better respects the end-to-end principles<br>
> therefore it is economically more viable.<br>
><br>
> -I propose that we do not touch the core Internet, i.e. enforce the<br>
> modification of all Internet routers.<br>
> -People should be free to choose the IP version that they wish because<br>
> deciding for others is a technology blocker. IETF designs IPv6, IETF blocks<br>
> its development. Because IETF does not give freedom of choice. This is not<br>
> normal. Some entities may use IPv6 others IPv4 yet others IPv7 for unknown<br>
> reasons. Everybody may agree on IPv6, or not. We do not know. We do not have<br>
> to.<br>
> -To give such freedom of choice, we need to change the end-nodes, for<br>
> example TCP.<br>
> -This is the end-to-end principle.<br>
><br>
> Here is a picture (in this picture we have a network of Internets running<br>
> random IP versions):<br>
> <a href="http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/images/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg" target="_blank">http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/images/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg</a><br>
><br>
> The question is:<br>
> ***Would this be the ideal for the Internet? Please discuss this question<br>
> without entering in design challenges.***<br>
><br>
> For more information, see my unpublished paper:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP</a><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Pars<br>
<br>
--<br>
Lachlan Andrew Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA)<br>
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia<br>
<<a href="http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew" target="_blank">http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew</a>><br>
</div></div>Ph <a href="tel:%2B61%203%209214%204837" value="+61392144837">+61 3 9214 4837</a><tel:%2B61%203%209214%204837><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>