Re: Vint Cerf Re: Backward Compatibility Re: IPv4 address block

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

Hi, Warren:

1)    "  not intended to be endorsement…":

    Fully agreed.

2)    "Implying that it is is disingenuous…   ":

    Again, I fully agree.

3)    Note that I only stated "It opened our eyes about what were the 
implications of EzIP ...   ". It was an education moment that was more 
than we could expect.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-15 17:04)




On 2024-01-13 19:50, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 9:48 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>
>     Vint told you the same thing other people have been telling you
>     for years. You don't seem to name drop anyone else. Weird.
>
>
>
> Indeed — Vint made an observation, but this was not intended to be 
> endorsement…
>
> Implying that it is is disingenuous…
>
> W
>
>
>     Respectfully, you have no credibility in this area. I happened to
>     notice this gem re-reading your draft last night,
>
>         A.1.1. T1a Initiates a Session Request towards T4a
>
>             T1a sends a session request to SPR4 that serves T4a by a plain IP
>             packet with header as in Figure 5, to RG1. There is no TCP port
>             number in this IP header yet.
>
>
>     That's a curious statement there at the end. Let's continue though.
>
>         A.1.2. RG1 Forwards the Packet to SPR1
>
>               RG1, allowing be masqueraded by T1a, relays the packet toward SPR1
>             by assigning the TCP Source port number, 3N, to T1a, with a header as
>             in Figure 6,. Note that the suffix "N" denotes the actual TCP port
>             number assigned by the RG1's RG-NAT. This could assume multiple
>             values, each represents a separate communications session that T1a is
>             engaged in. A corresponding entry is created in the RG1 state table
>             for handling the reply packet from the Destination site. Since T4a's
>             TCP port number is not known yet, it is filled with all 1's.
>
>                  0                   1                   2                   3
>                  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               1 |Version|IHL (6)|Type of Service|       Total Length (24)       |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               2 |        Identification         |Flags|     Fragment Offset     |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               3 | Time to Live  |    Protocol   |        Header Checksum        |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               4 |              Source Host Number (240.0.0.0)                   |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               5 |           Destination Host Number (69.41.190.148)             |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               6 |       Source Port (3N)        |   Destination Port (All 1's)  |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                           Figure 6  TCP/IP Header: From RG1 to SPR1
>
>
>     Wait a second.. what is a 'TCP/IP header'?
>
>         A.1.5. T4a Replies to SPR4
>
>             T4a interchanges the Source and Destination identifications in the
>             incoming TCP/IP packet to create a header as in Figure 9, for the
>             reply packet to SPR4.
>
>                  0                   1                   2                   3
>                  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               1 |Version|IHL (6)|Type of Service|       Total Length (24)       |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               2 |        Identification         |Flags|     Fragment Offset     |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               3 | Time to Live  |    Protocol   |        Header Checksum        |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               4 |              Source Host Number (240.0.0.10)                  |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               5 |           Destination Host Number (69.41.190.110)             |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>               6 |      Source Port (10C)        |     Destination Port (0C)     |
>                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                           Figure 9  TCP/IP Header: From T4a to SPR4
>
>
>     Oh my.. you actually meant it.
>
>     The draft authors don't appear to understand that TCP headers and
>     IP headers **are not the same thing**.
>
>     I would suggest reviewing RFC 791 ( IPv4 ) , and RFC 793 / 9293 (
>     TCP, original and updated ).
>
>
>
>     On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 7:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com
>     <mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:
>
>
>         Hi, Tom:
>
>         1)        " ...  Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything
>         about EzIP ... ":
>
>             FYI - Please see the below copy of a partial eMail thread.
>         Bold, red colored and Italicized letters are to focus on the
>         topic.
>
>         ***********
>
>
>         InternetPolicy () eList ISOC org
>         <mailto:InternetPolicy () eList ISOC org>eMail thread
>
>
>         On 2021-10-18 16:34, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
>
>         Dear Vint:
>
>
>         Yes, this is one perspective for visualizing the EzIP proposal.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Abe (2021-10-18 16:33 EDT)
>
>
>          Re: [Internet Policy] 202110180800.AYC Re: Platform
>         self-regulation
>
>
>          On 2021-10-18 10:39, */vinton cerf/* wrote:
>
>
>         sounds like /*eZIP*/is basically an */overlay/*network.
>
>
>         /*v*/
>
>
>         On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:33 AM Abraham Y. Chen via
>         InternetPolicy <internetpolicy () elists isoc org
>         <mailto:internetpolicy () elists isoc org>> wrote:
>
>
>         Hi, Scott:
>
>
>          0)    Thanks for your research.
>
>
>          1)    Both SCION (based on my best understanding) and our
>         work named EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) are technical
>         solutions for improving the Internet from its foundation level
>         (the architecture). There are many implications with such
>         schemes including social and legal if one looks into them.
>
>
>          2)    As I responded to Gene's questions (See my eMail with
>         subject line tag: "202110171756.AYC"), the SCION approach
>         implements certain restrictions ......
>
>         ************
>
>         2)    Prior to the above, we were quite unsure about what our
>         team was doing. So, I purposely avoided having any contact
>         with Vint. We had been describing the EzIP's RANs (Regional
>         Area Networks) as "kites floating in the air over an
>         geographic area anchored by an IPv4 address based cord".
>         Although visually clear, it was too wordy. By using one
>         concise word, */overlay/*, Vint eloquently classified the EzIP
>         network in terminology sense. It opened our eyes about what
>         were the implications of EzIP and what could be the
>         interactions with respect to the existing Internet, because
>         EzIP was a non-interfering enhancement to an existing system
>         which was a text book case of systems engineering.
>
>         Hope the above clears the air.
>
>
>         Regards,
>
>
>         Abe (2024-01-13 07:34)
>
>
>         On 2024-01-12 19:24, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>
> >         I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I
> >         come out to see Mr. Chen :
> >         - Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6
> >         - Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
> >
> >         Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage.
> >
> >         On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:46 PM Randy Bush <randy () psg com
> >         <mailto:randy () psg com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         
> <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>


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