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

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

Hi, Owen:

0)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2): This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it 
aside for now, until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme 
to you.

00)    Re: Ur. Pt. 4):    Okay, I was concerned about how to decipher 
this cryptic exchange. So let's put it aside as well.

1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1): Yes, you are correct that the EzIP network 
architecture looks like that of CG-NAT. In fact, it is exactly the same. 
This is actually the beauty of the EzIP solution. That is, without 
touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/* 
the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 
netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to universal 
peer-to-peer, where is any of such today? On the other hand, upon fully 
implemented the EzIP proposal (the second phase: making use of the 
Option Word in RFC791), an IoT in one RAN can directly reach a second 
IoT in another RAN world-wide. So that the original promise of the 
Internet will be finally fulfilled and for the long haul.

2)    Re: Ur. Pt. 3): Similarly, you probably only recognized the part 
that EzIP proposes to classify the 240/4 netblock as the fourth private 
address in RFC1918, but overlooked that such capacity will enable a RAN 
to cover a geographic area as big as Tokyo Metro, or 75% of smaller 
countries around the world, even before utilizing the conventional three 
private netblocks. This puts 240/4 into a different league from the 
other three conventional private netblocks, although all four have 
basically the same technical characteristics. Now, visualizing each RAN 
is tethered from the existing Internet core by one umbilical cord (one 
IPv4 address), it appears like a private network. So that each RAN can 
provide Internet services by utilizing existing technologies, while 
avoiding those undesired. Combining these RANs around the world, an 
*/overlay/* layer of routers (SPRs) can operate in parallel to the 
current Internet. Under such a configuration, the latter no long is 
involved with daily local activities, but only carries inter-RAN 
traffic, very much like the division between national and international 
telephone networks. This creates quite a different operation landscape. 
Please have a look at slide # 11 of the below whitepaper for a rough 
breakdown of the available addresses under the EzIP scheme. Furthermore, 
if used diligently, (treating IP address as "*/natural resources/*" 
instead of "*/personal properties/*"), the assignable "EzIP addresses" 
can last quite awhile.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf

3)    Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6):    I believe that there is a philosophic / 
logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in 
mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "*/personal 
freedom/*". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will 
shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A 
project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on 
artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, 
IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward 
compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system 
engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such 
fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance 
to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-26 09:35 EDT)



On 2022-03-25 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 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
>
> 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


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