nanog mailing list archives

Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block


From: Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 16:09:20 +1100

Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space? Wait, I'm
lost...

With CGNAT, there is either public IP space in front of the gateway, or
private space behind it. There is no such thing as "semi-private" space in
the world of CGNAT, as devices with public IPs can't directly access
devices behind a CGNAT gateway with a 100.64/10 address. It's either a
public address, or a private address (not to be confused with an RFC1918
private address).

Let's talk hypothetically for a minute and assume that 240/4 is used as
CGNAT space. Your "solution" to residential gateways not supporting the use
of 240/4 space being upgraded to OpenWRT won't work, because not all CPE
supports OpenWRT.

Instead of attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT, IPv6 is definitely
the easier solution to implement as the vast majority of vendors already
support v6.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:06, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

Hi, Mike:

1)   "... only private use. ...":

    The EzIP deployment plan is to use 240/4 netblock as "Semi-Public"
addresses for the existing CG-NAT facility. With many RG-NATs (Routing /
Residential Gateway -NATs) already capable of being 240/4 clients thru the
upgrade to OpenWrt, no IoT on any private premises will sense any change.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-14 23:04)


On 2024-01-12 15:16, Mike Hammett wrote:

I'm not talking about global, public use, only private use.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------
*From: *"Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc> <beecher () beecher cc>
*To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> <nanog () ics-il net>
*Cc: *"Ryan Hamel" <ryan () rkhtech org> <ryan () rkhtech org>, "Abraham Y.
Chen" <AYChen () alum mit edu> <AYChen () alum mit edu>, nanog () nanog org
*Sent: *Friday, January 12, 2024 2:06:32 PM
*Subject: *Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block

You don't need everything in the world to support it, just the things
"you" use.


You run an ISP, let me posit something.

Stipulate your entire network infra, services, and applications support
240/4, and that it's approved for global , public use tomorrow. Some
company gets a block in there, stands up some website. Here are some
absolutely plausible scenarios that you might have to deal with.

- Some of your customers are running operating systems / network gear that
doesn't support 240/4.
- Some of your customers may be using 3rd party DNS resolvers that don't
support 240/4.
- Some network in between you and the dest missed a few bogon ACLs ,
dropping your customer's traffic.

All of this becomes support issues you have to deal with.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:21 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

I wouldn't say it's unknowable, just that no one with a sufficient enough
interest in the cause has been loud enough with the research they've done,
assuming some research has been done..

You don't need everything in the world to support it, just the things
"you" use.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------
*From: *"Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc>
*To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
*Cc: *"Ryan Hamel" <ryan () rkhtech org>, "Abraham Y. Chen" <
AYChen () alum mit edu>, nanog () nanog org
*Sent: *Friday, January 12, 2024 1:16:53 PM
*Subject: *Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block

How far are we from that, in reality? I don't have any intention on using
the space, but I would like to put some definition to this boogey man.


It's unknowable really.

Lots of network software works just fine today with it. Some don't. To my
knowledge some NOS vendors have outright refused to support 240/4 unless
it's reclassified. Beyond network equipment, there is an unknowable number
of software packages , drivers, etc out in the world which 240/4 is still
hardcoded not to work. It's been unfortunate to see this fact handwaved
away in many discussions on the subject.

The Mirai worm surfaced in 2016. The software vulnerabilities used in its
attack vectors are still unpatched and present in massive numbers
across the internet; there are countless variants that still use the same
methods, 8 years later. Other vulnerabilities still exist after
multiple decades. But we somehow think devices will be patched to support
240/4 quickly?

It's just unrealistic.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:03 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

" every networking vendor, hardware vendor, and OS vendor"

How far are we from that, in reality? I don't have any intention on
using the space, but I would like to put some definition to this boogey man.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------
*From: *"Ryan Hamel" <ryan () rkhtech org>
*To: *"Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>, "Vasilenko Eduard" <
vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
*Cc: *"Abraham Y. Chen" <AYChen () alum MIT edu>, nanog () nanog org
*Sent: *Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:04:31 PM
*Subject: *Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block

Abraham,

You may not need permission from the IETF, but you effectively need it
from every networking vendor, hardware vendor, and OS vendor. If you do not
have buy in from key stakeholders, it's dead-on arrival.

Ryan
------------------------------
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of
Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
*Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2024 6:38:52 PM
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
*Cc:* Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen () alum MIT edu>; nanog () nanog org <
nanog () nanog org>
*Subject:* Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block


Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take
care when clicking links or opening attachments.

Hi, Vasilenko:

1)    ... These “multi-national conglo” has enough influence on the
IETF to not permit it.":

    As classified by Vint Cerf, 240/4 enabled EzIP is an overlay network
that may be deployed stealthily (just like the events reported by the
RIPE-LAB). So, EzIP deployment does not need permission from the IETF.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-11 21:38 EST)




On 2024-01-11 01:17, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:

It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using
it without announcement.

This is an assurance that 240/4 would never be permitted for Public
Internet. These “multi-national conglo” has enough influence on the
IETF to not permit it.

Ed/

*From:* NANOG [
mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org
<nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org>] *On Behalf Of *Abraham
Y. Chen
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2024 3:35 PM
*To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui () mektel ca> <amekkaoui () mektel ca>
*Cc:* nanog () nanog org; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen () alum MIT edu>
<AYChen () alum MIT edu>
*Subject:* 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
*Importance:* High



Hi, Karim:



1)    If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to
buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address *for
free* by *disabling* the program codes in your current facility that
has been *disabling* the use of 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at
the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined disciplines, this
is a practically unlimited resources. It has been known that multi-national
conglomerates have been using it without announcement. So, you can do so
stealthily according to the proposed mechanism which establishes uniform
practices, just as well.



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



2)    Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow
up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.





Regards,





Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)







On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:

Hi Nanog Community



Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?



Thank you



KARIM








<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>










Current thread: