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

Fri Jan 12 03:46:42 UTC 2024

Not going to lie, EzIP just seems to be some version of destination/source
NAT on steroids.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 14:36, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <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_-3759812132042785637_m_-2040759016673337921_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240112/d8f9cadb/attachment.html>