Re: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Ant:

1)    As I Cc:'ed you, I attempted to contact the author of the IPv4+ 
draft a few days ago to offer my reading of his work. I have not heard 
any response. In short, I believe that IPv4+ is paraphrasing the scheme 
of the unsuccessful RFC1385 that EzIP Draft cited as Informative 
Reference [12]. -- meaning that EzIP has avoided the trap of such approach.

2)    I went back to earlier versions of the IPv4+ drafts and discovered 
a surprising trend. That is, through all eight revisions, there has been 
hardly any actual write-up text changes! It appears that the author is 
just keeping the six-months-timer ticking.

3)    Since you indicated that IPv4+ was reported to NANOG, maybe you 
could retrieve that thread and check with the author about what is the 
status?

4)    "Have you approached any vendors about the feasibility of IP 
Options being used for switching at line rate in silicon?    ":    No. 
For the first phase of implementing EzIP, the configuration is called 
RAN (Regional Area Network). It is essentially a numbering plan 
enhancement to CG-NAT. There is no change to the basic IPv4 Header. The 
only engineering effort is "disabling the program code that has been 
disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock", followed by retiring the NAT 
function. So that CG-NAT can operate as simple routers, by having the 
look-up state-tables capability as backup.

5)    In the long run, yes, processing of the Option Word needs be 
considered and ideally be implemented in silicon to achieve the line 
rate switching. Many claim, however, such end-to-end connectivity is not 
needed according to the current trend, which is primarily Server / 
Client model by CDN business. So, EzIP is actually a forward looking two 
stage scheme. We can focus on the first phase for now to relieve the 
underlying issues. There will be plenty of lead time to upgrade the 
silicon when the demand for end-to-end connectivity begins to build up.

6)    " ...   but your replies are practically illegible because of 
formatting.   ... ":    I am still learning the proper eMail etiquette 
on NANOG. Could you please echo back some of my writings as you 
received? So that I can see what they got transformed to.

Thanks,


Abe (2022-04-06 11:25)


On 2022-04-03 16:14, Anthony Newman wrote:
> You should check outhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tang-ipv4plus-08  which is still dragging on
> after receiving similar treatment here to EzIP (although less patented by its author) and equally unlikely
> to be possible to implement in the real world in a timely fashion.
>
> Have you approached any vendors about the feasibility of IP Options being used for switching at line rate in silicon?
> Software IP stacks are the absolute least of your problem when proposing alterations to routing behaviour based on
> packet contents. Apologies if this has been covered, but your replies are practically illegible because of formatting.


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