Hi, Ryan:
1) " ... Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement
IPv6. ":
What is your selling point?
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-12 06:44)
2024-01-11 12:39, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> Abraham,
>
> You're arguing semantics instead of the actual point. Residential
> customers want Internet access, not intranet access. Again, VRFs are
> plentiful and so are CG-NAT firewall appliances or servers to run
> those VMs.
>
> Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6.
>
> Ryan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> on behalf of
> Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
> *To:* Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Where to Use 240/4 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, Michael:
>
> 1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in
> a private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ":
>
> EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area
> Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to
> the conventional Internet definition. This is actually the same as how
> 100.64/10 is used within CG-NAT.
>
> 2) However, this might be where the confusion comes from. With the
> geographical area coverage so much bigger, an RAN is effectively a
> public network. To mesh the two for consistency, we defined everything
> related to 240/4 as "Semi-Public" to distinguish this new layer of
> networking facility from the current public / private separation. That
> is, the CG-NAT routers will become SPRs (Semi-Public Routers) in
> EzIP's RAN, once the 240/4 is deployed.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-11 12:21)
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 10:45, Michael Butler via NANOG wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 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.
>>
>> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
>> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
>>
>> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled
>> with a header that defines ..
>>
>> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
> <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) " ... Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement
IPv6. ":
What is your selling point?
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-12 06:44)
2024-01-11 12:39, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> Abraham,
>
> You're arguing semantics instead of the actual point. Residential
> customers want Internet access, not intranet access. Again, VRFs are
> plentiful and so are CG-NAT firewall appliances or servers to run
> those VMs.
>
> Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6.
>
> Ryan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> on behalf of
> Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
> *To:* Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Where to Use 240/4 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, Michael:
>
> 1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in
> a private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ":
>
> EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area
> Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to
> the conventional Internet definition. This is actually the same as how
> 100.64/10 is used within CG-NAT.
>
> 2) However, this might be where the confusion comes from. With the
> geographical area coverage so much bigger, an RAN is effectively a
> public network. To mesh the two for consistency, we defined everything
> related to 240/4 as "Semi-Public" to distinguish this new layer of
> networking facility from the current public / private separation. That
> is, the CG-NAT routers will become SPRs (Semi-Public Routers) in
> EzIP's RAN, once the 240/4 is deployed.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-11 12:21)
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 10:45, Michael Butler via NANOG wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 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.
>>
>> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
>> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
>>
>> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled
>> with a header that defines ..
>>
>> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
> <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