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

Thu Jan 11 05:21:49 UTC 2024

Abraham,

There is no need to run one giant cluster. Many small clusters with VRFs and CG-NAT devices to bridge the gap from the VRF to the Internet and keep the blast radius small, are enough. A CG-NAT ISP should not need to work so hard to provide a unique enough CG-NAT IP address, as long as they can match a MAC address of the customer router + MAC address of the carrier equipment, to the DHCP and flow logs.

As along as the carrier implements IPv6, it will cut down on the active NAT sessions and port forwards the equipment needs to process.

Ryan Hamel

________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org at nanog.org> on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 8:09 PM
To: Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen at alum.mit.edu>; nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT 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, 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 at mektel.ca<mailto:amekkaoui at mektel.ca>> wrote:

Interesting and thank you for sharing.

KARIM

From: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com<mailto:aychen at avinta.com>>
Sent: January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
To: KARIM MEKKAOUI <amekkaoui at mektel.ca<mailto:amekkaoui at mektel.ca>>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen at alum.MIT.edu<mailto:AYChen at 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://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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240111/9dfe3efb/attachment.html>