Mailing List Archive

Abraham,

It has existed for many years, already supported on many devices, does not require NAT, address space is plentiful, does not require additional proposals, and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.

Ryan

________________________________
From: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
To: Ryan Hamel <ryan@rkhtech.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen@alum.MIT.edu>
Subject: IPv6? Re: 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, 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><mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com><mailto:aychen@avinta.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
To: Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net><mailto:imb@protected-networks.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org><mailto: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://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>

Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the simple fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues to get worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and tragically does nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more disaster on top of the existing mess).
The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of internet traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow.
You simply can’t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its life merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure before it is finally retired.
Owen

On Jan 12, 2024, at 03:46, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

? 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.https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"]www.avast.com

I could NOT agree more. Even tho, I am IPv6 phobic, let IPv4 go away.
At least, make it go away from mainstream commercial Internet.
90% users do NOT care about it. They want to browse web, watch movies
or play games. They can do it using IPv6.
I cant wait :) more IPv4 address space for people like me and our projects.


---------- Original message ----------

From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
Cc: "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen@alum.mit.edu>, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:22 -0800

Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you
attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the simple
fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues to get
worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and tragically does
nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more disaster on top of
the existing mess).

The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for
better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven
technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of internet
traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow.

You simply can??t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its life
merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure before it
is finally retired.

Owen


On Jan 12, 2024, at 03:46, Abraham Y. Chen
<aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

?? 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



[icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
Virus-free.www.avast.com

On 1/12/24 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you
> attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the
> simple fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues
> to get worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and
> tragically does nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more
> disaster on top of the existing mess).
>
> The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for
> better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven
> technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of
> internet traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow.
>
> You simply can’t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its
> life merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure
> before it is finally retired.
>
I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC
that makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If
it works for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all
of these recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use
when the knowability of whether it could work is zero.

Mike

Michael Thomas writes:

> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
> recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
> knowability of whether it could work is zero.

In 2008 there were two proposals

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/

where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
significant progress on its usability.

> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47?AM, Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> wrote:
>
> ?Michael Thomas writes:
>
>> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
>> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
>> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
>> recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
>> knowability of whether it could work is zero.
>
> In 2008 there were two proposals
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
>
> where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
> use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
> Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
> lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
> significant progress on its usability.

Well, we were supposed to all be using IPv6 (only) by now, and making 240/4 useable was just going to slow that process down.

IMHO, this is what you get when religion is mixed with engineering.

-Darrel

On 1/12/24 11:54 AM, Darrel Lewis wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47?AM, Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> wrote:
>>
>> ?Michael Thomas writes:
>>
>>> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
>>> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
>>> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
>>> recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
>>> knowability of whether it could work is zero.
>> In 2008 there were two proposals
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
>>
>> where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
>> use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
>> Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
>> lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
>> significant progress on its usability.
> Well, we were supposed to all be using IPv6 (only) by now, and making 240/4 useable was just going to slow that process down.
>
> IMHO, this is what you get when religion is mixed with engineering.

But it wouldn't be globally routable so it wouldn't change much. I'm not
even sure it would change much on the ground for CGNAT deployment? You
still need enough public addresses to service the load. It might make it
easier than partitioning your internal net into multiple 10/8 but on the
other hand you need to make certain your internal net still works with
240/4.

I'm mostly throwing this out there as a way to shut down these kinds of
discussions.

Mike

Hi, Seth:

0)    Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts.

1)    While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with
the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed
the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now
focusing on enhancing CG-NAT by expanding  RFC6598.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-13 16:08)

On 2024-01-12 14:45, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Michael Thomas writes:
>
>> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
>> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
>> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
>> recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
>> knowability of whether it could work is zero.
> In 2008 there were two proposals
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
>
> where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
> use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
> Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
> lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
> significant progress on its usability.



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

Thank you, everyone, for your responses.

Abe, I appreciate your enthisam but it is obvious you are not interested in
collaboration. You are singularly-minded and trollish.

I am assigning your email address to my spam filters. I will not see any
future communication from you.

O.


On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 4:13?p.m. Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Seth:
>
> 0) Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts.
>
> 1) While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with
> the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed
> the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now
> focusing on enhancing CG-NAT by expanding RFC6598.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-13 16:08)
>
> On 2024-01-12 14:45, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Michael Thomas writes:
>
>
> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
> recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
> knowability of whether it could work is zero.
>
> In 2008 there were two proposals
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
>
> where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
> use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
> Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
> lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
> significant progress on its usability.
>
>
>
>
> <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_2842409467345373561_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>