Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 1)    Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of
> convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically
> discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities.


No, it is not.

The original question from Karim was about acquiring some IPv4 space. We
can absolutely infer he wanted that space to be publically routable *today*.

The facts are that *today* :

1. 240/4 is not space that will provide expected internet connectivity
2. There are no plans or timelines in place that would change #1.

You stated to Karim that there was a way he could get IPs for free , and
implied if he reached out to you off list , you could help him make it
work. That was intentionally misleading, and frankly doesn't reflect very
well on you at all.


On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:09 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

> Hi, Tom:
>
> 1)    Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of
> convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically
> discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities. Since this
> is rather philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless we
> carry on a lengthy debate. Instead, I would like to address below only one
> aspect that you brought up.
>
> 2)    "... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable*
> space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs.
> ":
>
>     Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a current
> CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used. Looking from
> another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the subscriber set 64
> fold with still the original one publicly routable IPv4 address.
>
> 3)    This 64 fold scaling factor is critical because it allows one CG-NAT
> cluster to serve a geographical area that becomes sufficient to cover a
> significant political territory. For example, if we assign two 240/4
> addresses to each subscriber, one for stationary applications, one for
> mobile devices. And, each 240/4 address can be expanded by RFC1918
> netblocks (total about 17.6M each). Each CG-NAT can now serve a country
> with population up to 128M. It turns out that population of over 90+ % of
> countries are fewer than this. So, each of them needs only one publicly
> routable IPv4 address. Then, the demand for IPv4 address is drastically
> reduced.
>
> 4)    In brief, the 240/4 is to substitute that of 100.64/10. So that the
> need for the publicly routable IPv4 addresses is significantly reduced.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 23:08 EST)
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> Karim-
>
> Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
>
> 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly be
> able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, you
> cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many proposals
> over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened, and is
> unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
>
> Mr. Chen-
>
> I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your
> position, even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty pool
> to toss this idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicaly
> routable* space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet
> their needs.
>
> ( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case
> who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48 AM KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui () mektel ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting and thank you for sharing.
> >
> >
> >
> > KARIM
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
> > *Sent:* January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
> > *To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui () mektel ca>
> > *Cc:* nanog () nanog org; Chen, Abraham Y. <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>