Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Fri Jan 12 03:36:14 UTC 2024

Hi, Forrest:

0)    Thanks for your in-depth analysis.

1)     However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept 
clearer. That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute 
the current 100.64/10  netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything 
else in the current CG-NAT setup stays unchanged. This makes each CG-NAT 
cluster 64 fold bigger. And, various capabilities become available.

Regards,

Abe (2024-01-11 22:35)

On 2024-01-11 02:02, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been 
> discussed but I'm hoping that this might make a difference.
>
> Abraham,
>
> Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of 
> NAT box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP 
> internet.  That NAT box will have to remain in place until such time 
> as every single publically addressed device on the public internet has 
> been updated to support EzIP.  In addition, protocols such as DNS, 
> SIP, and others which pass around addresses will need to be updated to 
> be able to pass the full EzIP addressing around so endpoints can 
> properly insert the EzIP header, and so on.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that, at this point, deploying EzIP as 
> an end to end address exhaustion solution has MORE challenges that 
> simply deploying IPv6 would.  This is because, just like EzIP, 
> deploying IPv6 requires a NAT box of some sort to be put in place 
> until the last IPv4 device is turned off.   But unlike EzIP, almost 
> every new device coming out supports IPv6 out of the box.  All of the 
> technical standards work has already been done.  Thus, the only 
> meaningful barrier to IPv6 at this point is convincing people to use 
> it, not convincing people to use it PLUS convincing the tech companies 
> to support it,  and doing protocol changes like you would with EzIP.
>
> I applaud your attempt at a unique solution but I really feel that 
> ship has sailed, at least for an EzIP type of solution. Maybe 
> something like this would have better received years ago, but at this 
> point IPv6 is a much more logical path forward.
>
> I do wonder,  however,  if some of your concepts might be able to be 
> applied to the IPv6 transition.  I have some ideas here,  but most, if 
> not all, of them are only partially cooked but some have similar 
> approaches as EzIP but with an actual IPv6 packet inside.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:11 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Enno:
>
>     0)    Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.
>
>     1)    However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your
>     paper cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to
>     utilize the 240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet.
>     Our proposal, EzIP outlines a scheme that makes a clear use of the
>     240/4 by the general public, basically discouraging disparate
>     private usages. We were very much lost with what has been going on
>     with the 240/4 netblock, because there was no information about
>     who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab report clarified the fact
>     that it has been fragmented due to unannounced activities by
>     multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under the
>     cover of "Reserved for Future Use".
>
>     2)    " As you state yourself this could be considered
>     "unorthodox, if not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks
>     something' ":
>
>         I am afraid that  you read into my diplomatic expression too far.
>
>         A.    The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the
>     CG-NAT by providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume
>     that Karim is looking for. Such process (disabling the program
>     code that has been disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any
>     running code to prove it. To be blunt, anyone who claims that this
>     will be a real task only shows that he does not know his own code.
>
>         B.    The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up
>     end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver.
>     This is because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business
>     is a master-slave model which does not support it. However, this
>     capability is like international postal or telephony services that
>     are not daily needs for everyone. So, it should be treated as a
>     premium service that can be built up with time base on demand.
>
>         Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>     Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:
>>     On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>>>     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.
>>     As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not controversial".
>>     Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. Which is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:
>>
>>     https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/
>>
>>     cheers
>>
>>     Enno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>       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
>>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>     www.avast.com  <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
>     <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>
>
>
>     <#m_-2040759016673337921_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240111/e3562675/attachment.html>