nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
From: Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:20:53 +0000
Abraham, It has existed for many years, already supported on many devices, does not require NAT, address space is plentiful, does not require additional proposals, and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google. Ryan ________________________________ From: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM To: Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org> Cc: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>; Michael Butler <imb () protected-networks net>; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen () alum MIT edu> Subject: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 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, Ryan: 1) " ... Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6. ": What is your selling point? Regards, Abe (2024-01-12 06:44) 2024-01-11 12:39, Ryan Hamel wrote: Abraham, You're arguing semantics instead of the actual point. Residential customers want Internet access, not intranet access. Again, VRFs are plentiful and so are CG-NAT firewall appliances or servers to run those VMs. Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6. Ryan ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org><mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com><mailto:aychen () avinta com> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM To: Michael Butler <imb () protected-networks net><mailto:imb () protected-networks net> Cc: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org> <nanog () nanog org><mailto:nanog () nanog org> Subject: Where to Use 240/4 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, Michael: 1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ": EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to the conventional Internet definition. This is actually the same as how 100.64/10 is used within CG-NAT. 2) However, this might be where the confusion comes from. With the geographical area coverage so much bigger, an RAN is effectively a public network. To mesh the two for consistency, we defined everything related to 240/4 as "Semi-Public" to distinguish this new layer of networking facility from the current public / private separation. That is, the CG-NAT routers will become SPRs (Semi-Public Routers) in EzIP's RAN, once the 240/4 is deployed. Hope this helps, Abe (2024-01-11 12:21) On 2024-01-10 10:45, Michael Butler via NANOG wrote: On 1/10/24 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. While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with a header that defines .. #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) Michael [https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<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:
- Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block, (continued)
- Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 12)
- Re: Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Niels Bakker (Jan 12)
- Re: Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 13)
- Re: Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Niels Bakker (Jan 13)
- Re: Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 12)
- Reusable 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: Reusable 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 11)
- Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Ryan Hamel (Jan 11)
- IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Ryan Hamel (Jan 12)
- IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 14)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 14)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Saku Ytti (Jan 14)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block jordi.palet--- via NANOG (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Saku Ytti (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block jordi.palet--- via NANOG (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Saku Ytti (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Michael Thomas (Jan 15)
- Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Michael Thomas (Jan 15)