RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

["Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

Makes sense, Abe, for the next version.

Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT device can only talk to another IPv6 device, where that 
other device may use a YATT address or any other IPv6 address.
But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby steps for those who want to.

Keep safe;

Pascal

From: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com>; Justin 
Streiner <streinerj () gmail com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi, Pascal:

What I would appreciate is an IP packet header design/definition layout, word-by-word, ideally in bit-map style, of an 
explicit presentation of all IP addresses involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the second realm. This will 
provide a clearer picture of how the real world implementation may look like.

Thanks,


Abe (2022-04-01 09:48)


On 2022-04-01 08:49, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
As I understand: “IPv4 Realms” between “Shaft” should be capable to have a plain IPv4 header (or else why all of these).
Then Gateway in the Shaft should change headers (from IPv4 to IPv6).
Who should implement this gateway and why? He should be formally appointed to such an exercise, right?
Map this 2 level hierarchy to the real world – you may fail with this.
Ed/
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert () cisco com]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com><mailto:vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Justin Streiner 
<streinerj () gmail com><mailto:streinerj () gmail com>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com><mailto:aychen () avinta 
com>
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hello Eduard:

Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue that some things will have to be planned between stake holders, and that it will not 
be easy.
But you know what the French say about “impossible”.
Or to paraphrase Sir Arthur, now that we have eliminated all the impossible transition scenarios, whatever remains…

There will be YADA prefixes just like there are root DNS. To be managed by different players as you point out. And all 
routable within the same shaft.

Keep safe;

Pascal

From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com<mailto:vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>>
Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com<mailto:pthubert () cisco com>>; Justin Streiner <streinerj () 
gmail com<mailto:streinerj () gmail com>>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com<mailto:aychen () avinta com>>
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi Pascal,
In general, your idea to create a hierarchy is good.
In practice, it would fail because you have created a virtual hierarchy that does not map to any administrative border. 
Who should implement gateways for the “Shaft”? Why?
If you would appoint Carrier as the Shaft responsible then it is not enough bits for Shaft.
If you would appoint Governments as the Shaft responsible then would be a so big scandal that you would regret the 
proposal.
Hence, I do not see proper mapping for the hierarchy to make YADA successful.
Eduard
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via 
NANOG
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com<mailto:streinerj () gmail com>>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta 
com<mailto:aychen () avinta com>>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

For the sake of it, Justin, I just published https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.
The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range in an IPv4-only world. For some people that might be enough 
and I’m totally fine with that.

Keep safe;

Pascal

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com () nanog org<mailto:nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com () nanog org>> On 
Behalf Of Justin Streiner
Sent: dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com<mailto:aychen () avinta com>>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Abe:

To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able 
to communicate via IPv4.  I have seen no evidence of that.

I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more knowledgeable 
on that to speak up if they're so inclined.

Thank you
jms

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com<mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:

1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...     ":   After all these discussions, are you still 
denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas 
to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about 
it. Thanks.



[Image removed by 
sender.]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>