Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Mar 25, 2022, at 18:47 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:
>
> ******  Resend to go through NANOG ******
>
>
> On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> > Dear Owen:
> >
> > 0)    You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and crucial views that I would like 
> > to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the correct leads.
> >
> > 1)    " ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified 
> > effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4. ...   ":     Perhaps you have not bothered to scan 
> > through a two page whitepaper (URL below, again) that I submitted a week or so ago? It promises simple 
> > implementation and significant increase of assignable IPv4 addresses, even extendable to the similar size of IPv6 if 
> > we could forgo our mentality about the IP addresses as "Personal Properties", by switching to treat them as "Natural 
> > Resources".
> >
> >       https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf 
> > <https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf>

It still looks like NAT to me.

NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider 
model.

Your proposal perpetuates that problem.

> > 2)    " ...  so that content providers can start turning off v4 where it’s costing them money to support it. ....   
> > " & "... Content providers turning off v4 face competition from content providers that don’t. ...  ":    These two 
> > statements appeared to come from two separate posting of yours. They seemed to be contradicting each other. Did I 
> > misread somehow?

No, it is not contradictory at all…

Content providers that have deployed IPv6 are eager to turn off IPv4 as soon as it won’t lose them customers. They are 
worried about losing customers because competition exists that might not turn off IPv4 at the same time they do. Thus, 
there is a need for customers to be IPv6 deployed before content providers can start turning off IPv4. Thus, the 
persistence of IPv4 in clients, especially enterprises, is costing content providers money.

> > Now from the last post below:
> >
> > 3)    "  ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified 
> > effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4....   ": Please see information provided by Pt. 1) 
> > above.

OK, so you want to extend RFC-1918 instead… Arguably even more worthless than reclassifying it as GUA. While it’s true 
that some very large deployments are short of RFC-1918 space, the reality is that the real shortage is in the GUA realm.

> > 4)    " ... I think it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some part of the internet might 
> > actually do something with it. Its important that happens now, better late then never ... Please feel free to use it 
> > for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p ...    ":    I am in full agreement with you. Our proposal is the 
> > solution in Pt. 1) above.

That’s not me. That’s Joe Maimon IIRC. My part was “Pleas feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area 
numbers. :p.

It was mostly a snarky comment since neither BGP Router IDs nor OSPF Area numbers are actually IP addresses.

> > 5)    "  ...  if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6 on bandaids and hacks to make v4 
> > last just a little longer, .... ":    This is not a productive opinion. Please do not forget that the Internet 
> > heavily promotes personal freedom. One can not force others to do something that they do not believe in. Stopping 
> > them from doing one thing does not automatically make them to do what you like. A project must have its own merits 
> > that attract contribution. The failure of the IPv6 actually started from when a decision was made to the effect of 
> > "not to emphasize backward compatibility with IPv4" which broke one of the golden rules in system engineering. Not 
> > recognizing such and focusing to find a way for remedying it, but continuing to force others to migrate to IPv6 camp 
> > with various tactics does not foster progress.

We can agree to disagree about that… I think trying to continue to support IPv4 is not a productive opinion.

> > 6)    "  ... The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. ... ":    EzIP is a parallel 
> > experiment to the current Internet (not only IPv4, but also IPv6) operations, because its overlay architecture on 
> > the latter demarcates everything happening on it from the Internet. As long as packets exchanged between the two 
> > conform to the established Internet protocols, an EzIP deployment (called RAN - Regional Area Network) will appear 
> > as innocent as an ordinary private network.

Again, I disagree… You left out the relevant part of my quote where I stated that resources spent developing this 
mechanism are better used deploying IPv6.

Owen