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

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

Hi, Brandon:

1)    "So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections?  ..  
":    There is difference between "via one IPv4 public address" and 
"wide bandwidth or multiple channels". The former is called "numbering 
plan". The latter is part of "traffic engineering". The former defines 
the configuration / architecture of the latter, but not restricts its 
capability. One simple analogy is that a corporation headquarters 
publishes only one (representative) telephone number. But, everyone 
knows that there are multiple physical channels to carry the 
simultaneous conversations. So, we discuss about network architecture 
here. Then, the implementation engineering will take care of the details.

2)    " It also looks like an opportunity for telcos/governments to 
partition their part of the internet and impose whatever censorship they 
wish. ...  ":    The EzIP scheme provides an alternative to the current 
"Internet way" operation model and can operate in parallel while 
none-interfering to each other. There is no intention for EzIP to 
replace the current Internet. The hope is to let the two models operate 
in real time for the consumer to make the informed choice, as in a free 
market.

3)    " You previously described this as like connecting CG-NATs 
together via a VPN. ...   ":    I do not believe that I have ever 
mentioned VPN in any of our literature, nor correspondence. I would 
appreciate learning where did you find such a connection.

4)    " 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?    ": As it has become evident recently through various 
posting, the 240/4 netblock has been used "behind-the-scene" by many 
projects without the explicit permission by ICANN. Since packets with 
240/4 addressing get dropped by existing routers, it actually makes the 
deployment of the new project easier. EzIP can be deployed in the same 
fashion as well. However, with the Unicast Extension Project became 
known, we would like to go along with their efforts to make the EzIP 
process more "Kosher".

5)    "... 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....    ":    
The CG-NAT netblock of /10 is only one fourth of the largest private 
netblock 10/8. So, it is not big enough for the next level of challenge. 
Making use of the 240/4 netblock allows EzIP to serve a large enough 
geographical area, so that a true "Regional" Area Network characteristic 
may be achieved. A RAN can serve a population of upto 39M, even before 
employing the three conventional private netblocks. So, it is possible 
to experiment the wish of the "Country" networks idea proposed by ITU 
about one decade ago. Whether it is better or worse than the current 
Internet, EzIP provides a separate test bed for such, instead of verbal 
debates forever.

6)    " 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. ...  ":    As have been hinted a couple times 
already on this forum, the ideal EzIP initial deployment beds are the 
existing CG-NAT modules. All we need to do is to enable the routers in a 
CG-NAT module to route 240/4 netblock and retire the 100.64/10 netblock. 
Since every customer premises can have a static 240/4 address, the DHCP 
process in the CG-NAT can fade out. The current communication between 
this CG-NAT with the Internet core remains unchanged. This process can 
be done gradually, one CG-NAT module at a time. No one outside of each 
of such tranistin will even notice something has happened. There is no 
need to do this globally in one shot, at all.

7)    "Is 240/4 special to EzIP such that alternative numbers may not be 
used?   " No, nothing is special here. The only reason that 240/4 is 
attractive is because it is big, continuous as well as being "Reserved 
for Future use" for so long. It is like a never-never land, fresh enough 
to do something really grand and for the long term.

8)    " That sounds an entirely undesirable goal for the internet.    
":    As I state above, EzIP offers a configuration for experimenting a 
(or more) parallel Internet(s). they will not interfere the current 
Internet, nor one another. So, what is your concern or reservation?

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-27 16:35)




On 2022-03-27 10:49, Brandon Butterworth 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


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