Hi, Tom:
1) Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of
convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically
discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities. Since
this is rather philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless
we carry on a lengthy debate. Instead, I would like to address below
only one aspect that you brought up.
2) "... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable*
space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their
needs. ":
Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a
current CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used.
Looking from another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the
subscriber set 64 fold with still the original one publicly routable
IPv4 address.
3) This 64 fold scaling factor is critical because it allows one
CG-NAT cluster to serve a geographical area that becomes sufficient to
cover a significant political territory. For example, if we assign two
240/4 addresses to each subscriber, one for stationary applications, one
for mobile devices. And, each 240/4 address can be expanded by RFC1918
netblocks (total about 17.6M each). Each CG-NAT can now serve a country
with population up to 128M. It turns out that population of over 90+ %
of countries are fewer than this. So, each of them needs only one
publicly routable IPv4 address. Then, the demand for IPv4 address is
drastically reduced.
4) In brief, the 240/4 is to substitute that of 100.64/10. So that
the need for the publicly routable IPv4 addresses is significantly reduced.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-10 23:08 EST)
On 2024-01-10 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Karim-
>
> Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
>
> 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly
> be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it,
> you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many
> proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not
> happened, and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
>
> Mr. Chen-
>
> I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your
> position, even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty
> pool to toss this idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire
> *publicaly routable* space without being clear that this suggestion
> wouldn't meet their needs.
>
> ( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which
> case who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48?AM KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui@mektel.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting and thank you for sharing.
>
> KARIM
>
> *From:*Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
> *Sent:* January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
> *To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui@mektel.ca>
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen@alum.MIT.edu>
> *Subject:* 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
> *Importance:* High
>
> Hi, Karim:
>
> 1) If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are
> asking to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved
> IPv4 address */_for free_/* by */_disabling_/* the program codes
> in your current facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of
> 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper.
> Utilized according to the outlined disciplines, this is a
> practically unlimited resources. It has been known that
> multi-national conglomerates have been using it without
> announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the
> proposed mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.
>
> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>
> 2) Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please
> follow up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their
> interests.
>
> Regards,
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)
>
> On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
>
> Hi Nanog Community
>
> Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is
> the price?
>
> Thank you
>
> KARIM
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
1) Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of
convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically
discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities. Since
this is rather philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless
we carry on a lengthy debate. Instead, I would like to address below
only one aspect that you brought up.
2) "... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable*
space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their
needs. ":
Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a
current CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used.
Looking from another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the
subscriber set 64 fold with still the original one publicly routable
IPv4 address.
3) This 64 fold scaling factor is critical because it allows one
CG-NAT cluster to serve a geographical area that becomes sufficient to
cover a significant political territory. For example, if we assign two
240/4 addresses to each subscriber, one for stationary applications, one
for mobile devices. And, each 240/4 address can be expanded by RFC1918
netblocks (total about 17.6M each). Each CG-NAT can now serve a country
with population up to 128M. It turns out that population of over 90+ %
of countries are fewer than this. So, each of them needs only one
publicly routable IPv4 address. Then, the demand for IPv4 address is
drastically reduced.
4) In brief, the 240/4 is to substitute that of 100.64/10. So that
the need for the publicly routable IPv4 addresses is significantly reduced.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-10 23:08 EST)
On 2024-01-10 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Karim-
>
> Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
>
> 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly
> be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it,
> you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many
> proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not
> happened, and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
>
> Mr. Chen-
>
> I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your
> position, even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty
> pool to toss this idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire
> *publicaly routable* space without being clear that this suggestion
> wouldn't meet their needs.
>
> ( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which
> case who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48?AM KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui@mektel.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting and thank you for sharing.
>
> KARIM
>
> *From:*Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
> *Sent:* January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
> *To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui@mektel.ca>
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen@alum.MIT.edu>
> *Subject:* 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
> *Importance:* High
>
> Hi, Karim:
>
> 1) If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are
> asking to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved
> IPv4 address */_for free_/* by */_disabling_/* the program codes
> in your current facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of
> 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper.
> Utilized according to the outlined disciplines, this is a
> practically unlimited resources. It has been known that
> multi-national conglomerates have been using it without
> announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the
> proposed mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.
>
> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>
> 2) Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please
> follow up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their
> interests.
>
> Regards,
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)
>
> On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
>
> Hi Nanog Community
>
> Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is
> the price?
>
> Thank you
>
> KARIM
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com