Mailing List Archive

Hi, Chris:

0)    Thanks for your observation.

1)    Although I specifically requested Karim to go offline on our idea
to his inquiry, lots of comments appeared on NANOG publicly. To be
polite, I tried to respond by clarifying and describing each.
Unfortunately, many comments are actually persistent IPv6 promotions,
even my attempt of bringing up the community consensus of "Dual-Stack
has distinguished IPv6 and IPv4 into separate tracks" was in vain.

2)    Philosophically, IPv6 and IPv4 are kind of like two religions,
each with its own believers. As long as the devotees of each focus on
their respective passion, the world will be peaceful. As soon as one
camp imposes its preference onto the other, friction starts. Unchecked,
it can go even worse. ... But, I digressed.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-21 12:06)


On 2024-01-20 12:50, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time,sronan@ronan-online.com <sronan@ronan-online.com> said:
>> I am curious if anyone has ever given you positive feedback on this idea? So far
>> all I’ve seen is the entire community thinking it’s a bad idea. Why do you
>> insist this is a good solution?
> Because people keep responding.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Abraham,

What you are presenting here is a solution looking for a problem. There are multiple solutions available today that do not require your proposed hacks to IPv4 space. If your ideas keep getting rejected by the masses, maybe you should read the room and lookup the phrase "resistance is futile."

That is the last of my .02c for this thread.

Ryan

________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 9:06:28 AM
To: Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen@alum.MIT.edu>; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.

Hi, Chris:

0) Thanks for your observation.

1) Although I specifically requested Karim to go offline on our idea to his inquiry, lots of comments appeared on NANOG publicly. To be polite, I tried to respond by clarifying and describing each. Unfortunately, many comments are actually persistent IPv6 promotions, even my attempt of bringing up the community consensus of "Dual-Stack has distinguished IPv6 and IPv4 into separate tracks" was in vain.

2) Philosophically, IPv6 and IPv4 are kind of like two religions, each with its own believers. As long as the devotees of each focus on their respective passion, the world will be peaceful. As soon as one camp imposes its preference onto the other, friction starts. Unchecked, it can go even worse. ... But, I digressed.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-21 12:06)


On 2024-01-20 12:50, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, sronan@ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan@ronan-online.com> <sronan@ronan-online.com><mailto:sronan@ronan-online.com> said:


I am curious if anyone has ever given you positive feedback on this idea? So far
all I?ve seen is the entire community thinking it?s a bad idea. Why do you
insist this is a good solution?



Because people keep responding.



[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<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>

> 2) Philosophically, IPv6 and IPv4 are kind of like two religions, each with its own believers. As long as the devotees of each focus on their respective passion, the world will be peaceful. As soon as one camp imposes its preference onto the other, friction starts. Unchecked, it can go even worse. ... But, I digressed.

Think of IPv4 like 8-track tapes and IPv6 like a modern streaming service. Yes, you need more recent hardware than 1975 to play IPv6, but it still delivers the same basic services as IPv4, just better and with a bigger address space.

IPv6 (or something) has to replace IPv4. Continuing to pretend that we can cobble IPv4 into a sustainable solution for a global internet going forward is just prolonging the pain.

EZIP is just another failed attempt at pretending math can be overcome.

Owen