Hi, Forrest:
0) Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept
clearer. That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute
the current 100.64/10 netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything
else in the current CG-NAT setup stays unchanged. This makes each CG-NAT
cluster 64 fold bigger. And, various capabilities become available.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-11 22:35)
On 2024-01-11 02:02, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been
> discussed but I'm hoping that this might make a difference.
>
> Abraham,
>
> Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of
> NAT box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP
> internet. That NAT box will have to remain in place until such time
> as every single publically addressed device on the public internet has
> been updated to support EzIP. In addition, protocols such as DNS,
> SIP, and others which pass around addresses will need to be updated to
> be able to pass the full EzIP addressing around so endpoints can
> properly insert the EzIP header, and so on.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that, at this point, deploying EzIP as
> an end to end address exhaustion solution has MORE challenges that
> simply deploying IPv6 would. This is because, just like EzIP,
> deploying IPv6 requires a NAT box of some sort to be put in place
> until the last IPv4 device is turned off. But unlike EzIP, almost
> every new device coming out supports IPv6 out of the box. All of the
> technical standards work has already been done. Thus, the only
> meaningful barrier to IPv6 at this point is convincing people to use
> it, not convincing people to use it PLUS convincing the tech companies
> to support it, and doing protocol changes like you would with EzIP.
>
> I applaud your attempt at a unique solution but I really feel that
> ship has sailed, at least for an EzIP type of solution. Maybe
> something like this would have better received years ago, but at this
> point IPv6 is a much more logical path forward.
>
> I do wonder, however, if some of your concepts might be able to be
> applied to the IPv6 transition. I have some ideas here, but most, if
> not all, of them are only partially cooked but some have similar
> approaches as EzIP but with an actual IPv6 packet inside.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:11 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Enno:
>
> 0) Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.
>
> 1) However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your
> paper cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to
> utilize the 240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet.
> Our proposal, EzIP outlines a scheme that makes a clear use of the
> 240/4 by the general public, basically discouraging disparate
> private usages. We were very much lost with what has been going on
> with the 240/4 netblock, because there was no information about
> who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab report clarified the fact
> that it has been fragmented due to unannounced activities by
> multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under the
> cover of "Reserved for Future Use".
>
> 2) " As you state yourself this could be considered
> "unorthodox, if not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks
> something' ":
>
> I am afraid that you read into my diplomatic expression too far.
>
> A. The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the
> CG-NAT by providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume
> that Karim is looking for. Such process (disabling the program
> code that has been disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any
> running code to prove it. To be blunt, anyone who claims that this
> will be a real task only shows that he does not know his own code.
>
> B. The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up
> end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver.
> This is because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business
> is a master-slave model which does not support it. However, this
> capability is like international postal or telephony services that
> are not daily needs for everyone. So, it should be treated as a
> premium service that can be built up with time base on demand.
>
> Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>>> 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.
>> As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not controversial".
>> Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. Which is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:
>>
>> https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Enno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> --
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
> <#m_-2040759016673337921_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
0) Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept
clearer. That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute
the current 100.64/10 netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything
else in the current CG-NAT setup stays unchanged. This makes each CG-NAT
cluster 64 fold bigger. And, various capabilities become available.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-11 22:35)
On 2024-01-11 02:02, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been
> discussed but I'm hoping that this might make a difference.
>
> Abraham,
>
> Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of
> NAT box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP
> internet. That NAT box will have to remain in place until such time
> as every single publically addressed device on the public internet has
> been updated to support EzIP. In addition, protocols such as DNS,
> SIP, and others which pass around addresses will need to be updated to
> be able to pass the full EzIP addressing around so endpoints can
> properly insert the EzIP header, and so on.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that, at this point, deploying EzIP as
> an end to end address exhaustion solution has MORE challenges that
> simply deploying IPv6 would. This is because, just like EzIP,
> deploying IPv6 requires a NAT box of some sort to be put in place
> until the last IPv4 device is turned off. But unlike EzIP, almost
> every new device coming out supports IPv6 out of the box. All of the
> technical standards work has already been done. Thus, the only
> meaningful barrier to IPv6 at this point is convincing people to use
> it, not convincing people to use it PLUS convincing the tech companies
> to support it, and doing protocol changes like you would with EzIP.
>
> I applaud your attempt at a unique solution but I really feel that
> ship has sailed, at least for an EzIP type of solution. Maybe
> something like this would have better received years ago, but at this
> point IPv6 is a much more logical path forward.
>
> I do wonder, however, if some of your concepts might be able to be
> applied to the IPv6 transition. I have some ideas here, but most, if
> not all, of them are only partially cooked but some have similar
> approaches as EzIP but with an actual IPv6 packet inside.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:11 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Enno:
>
> 0) Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.
>
> 1) However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your
> paper cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to
> utilize the 240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet.
> Our proposal, EzIP outlines a scheme that makes a clear use of the
> 240/4 by the general public, basically discouraging disparate
> private usages. We were very much lost with what has been going on
> with the 240/4 netblock, because there was no information about
> who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab report clarified the fact
> that it has been fragmented due to unannounced activities by
> multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under the
> cover of "Reserved for Future Use".
>
> 2) " As you state yourself this could be considered
> "unorthodox, if not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks
> something' ":
>
> I am afraid that you read into my diplomatic expression too far.
>
> A. The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the
> CG-NAT by providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume
> that Karim is looking for. Such process (disabling the program
> code that has been disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any
> running code to prove it. To be blunt, anyone who claims that this
> will be a real task only shows that he does not know his own code.
>
> B. The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up
> end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver.
> This is because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business
> is a master-slave model which does not support it. However, this
> capability is like international postal or telephony services that
> are not daily needs for everyone. So, it should be treated as a
> premium service that can be built up with time base on demand.
>
> Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>>> 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.
>> As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not controversial".
>> Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. Which is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:
>>
>> https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Enno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> --
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
> <#m_-2040759016673337921_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>