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

[christian de larrinaga via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Your take on English history is a delightful fantasy but it is
just that a delightful fantasy. Norman barons were not typically
concerned with the health of their anglo saxon/british serfs / yoemen
other than providing the required tithes.

But taking you at what seems to be your intention. Speaking as a digital peasant I am not assured that my interests are 
protected
from anybody by being told I have no direct access to people I want to
communicate with but have to go through a third party. Any addressing
model that  terminates address space between me and someone I
communicate with also terminates my communications and security and by
so doing introduces a number of uncertainties potentially rather
arbitrary to what would otherwise be under my direct policy domain.

C


"Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com> writes:

> Hi, Christian:
>
> 0)    Allow me following your "towers of babel world" metaphor to tell
> a short story.
>
> 1)    In the ancient days, peasants labored under the shadow of the
> Tower, following the rules of and paid tax to the Lord living in the
> Tower. In return, they expected protection from the Lord against
> harms. (Sometime ago, I read an archaeological article reporting
> certain evidence that the Load somewhere in England during medieval
> time might have been expected to protect his peasants from any harm,
> including even paid his life for famine.)
>
> 2)    In the modern world, the peasants still live around the Tower
> following the rules, paying taxes and expecting protection from the
> Lord, now represented by the government agencies such as local police,
> FCC, FTC, DoD, DHS, etc.
>
> 3)    In the Internet era, the peasants roam everywhere around the
> cyberspace freely enjoying the Internet way. However, their wealth is
> now being siphoned out to the invisible Lords (the multi-national
> businesses with virtual presence in each and every Tower). However,
> little can be expected in return when perpetrators attack, because no
> Lord assumes the responsibility, nor any can be held responsible.
>
> 4)    EzIP proposes an overlay cyberspace with geographic flavor to
> restore the society infrastructure back to Pt. 2) above, while
> providing the daily services of Pt. 3). It essentially offers a
> parallel Internet for the peasants who can again expect protection
> from their local government who collects taxes, while without losing
> the benefits of the digital revolution.
>
> 5)    The two cyberspaces are expected to coexist and none-interfering
> to each other. Peasants have the freedom of choice by living in either
> or try both then decide.
>
> The above is just a quick rough thought, far from polished. It is
> intended to be a preliminary framework so that we can hang some meat
> on it for starting meaningful discussions.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-04-01 14:17)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022-03-27 11:03, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> > On 27 March 2022 15:53:25 Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> > > > EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
> > > > address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via
> > > > one IPv4
> > > > public address.
> > >
> > > So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections? Nobody
> > > of scale would accept such a limitation. It also looks like an
> > > opportunity for telcos/governments to partition their part
> > > of the internet and impose whatever censorship they wish.
> > >
> > > > As such, the collection of RANs forms an overlay network
> > > > layer wrapping around the current Internet core. Consequently, only the
> > > > SPRs in the RAN need to be able to transport 240/4 addressed packets.
> > >
> > > You previously described this as like connecting CG-NATs together via a
> > > VPN. I don't see why we'd want to add maintaining a global VPN to
> > > already difficult peering relationships. It could be used to exlude non
> > > EzIP club members.
> > >
> > > > This is why we talk about enabling new (but based on existing design)
> > > > routers to use 240/4 netblock for serving as SPRs, but not perturbing
> > > > any routers in the current Internet.
> > >
> > > As it's a CG-NAT variant why are you delaying yourself by requiring
> > > new address space that will take a long time to become available? Why
> > > not use the already allocated space for CG-NAT? Sure it's only a /10
> > > but that's an already (probably too) large RAN.
> > >
> > > It also seems unfeasibly optimistic that if the work was done globally
> > > to make 240/4 useable that they'd want to dedicate it to the as yet
> > > undeployed EzIP. You might stand more chance if you gained some
> > > critical mass using the existing available 100.64/10 & rfc1918 space,
> > > and then those that find they need more in one RAN will make the case
> > > for 240/4 when it becomes necessary for them. Is 240/4 special to
> > > EzIP such that alternative numbers may not be used?
> > >
> > > > I would like to share one intriguing graphics (see URL below) that
> > > > is almost perfect for depicting the EzIP deployment configuration.
> > > > Consider the blue sphere as the earth or the current Internet core and
> > > > the golden colored land as the RANs. By connecting each continent,
> > > > country or all the way down to a Region to the earth via one IPv4
> > > > address, we have the EzIP configuration. With this architecture, each
> > > > RAN looks like a private network.
> > >
> > > That sounds an entirely undesirable goal for the internet.
> > >
> > > brandon
> >
> > It isn't the Internet. It's at best a very poorly connected spur gateway.
> >
> > Too many today don't remember the towers of Babel world prior to the
> > Internet. If they did they'd understand that building on this type
> > of idea is like burying yourself.... And any customers so unwise to
> > get involved
> >
> > C


-- 
christian de larrinaga 
https://firsthand.net