One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

Sat Jan 13 08:30:59 UTC 2024

A couple of points:

1) There is less work needed to support IPv6 than your proposed solution.
I'm not taking about 230/4.  I'm talking about your EzIP overlay.

2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for
any of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future.
That is,  you either needed an IPv6 address or you couldn't reach Google,
youtube, Gmail and the rest of the public services.  I bet that in this
scenario every eyeball provider in the country all of a sudden would be
extremely motivated to deploy IPv6, even if the IPv4 providers end up
natting their IPv4 customers to IPv6.  I really expect something like this
to be the next part of the end game for IPv4.

Or stated differently: at some point someone with enough market power is
going to basically say "enough is enough" and make the decision for the
rest of us that IPv4 is effectively done on the public internet.   The
large tech companies all have a history of sunsetting things when it
becomes a bigger problem to support than it's worth.  Try getting a modern
browser that works on 32 bit windows.   Same with encryption protocols,
Java in the browser,  Shockwave and flash, and on and on.

I see no reason why IPv4 should be any different.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 3:42 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Forrest:
>
> 0)    You put out more than one topic, all at one time. Allow me to
> address each briefly.
>
> 1)   "  The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's
> side and every provider that has one wants to make it go away as quickly as
> possible.   ":
>
>     The feeling and desire are undeniable facts. However, the existing
> configuration was evolved from various considerations through a long time.
> There is a tremendous inertia accumulated on it. There is no magic bullet
> to get rid of it quickly. We must study carefully to evolve it further
> incrementally. Otherwise, an even bigger headache or disaster will happen.
>
> 2)    "  The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the need
> for any CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space.  ":
>
>     The obvious answer was IPv6. However, its performance after near two
> decades of deployment has not been convincing. EzIP is an alternative,
> requiring hardly any development, to address this need immediately.
>
> 3)   "  Until the cost (or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the cost
> to move,  we're going to see continued resistance to doing so.   ":
>
>     This strategy is easily said than done. It reminds me of my system
> planning work for the old AT&T. At that time, Bell Operating Companies
> (BOCs) could be coerced to upgrade their facility by just gradually raising
> the cost of owning the old equipment by assuming fewer would be be used,
> while the newer version would cost less because growing number of
> deployments. Looking at resultant financial forecast, the BOC decisions
> were easy. Originally trained as a hardware radio engineer, I was totally
> stunned. But, it worked well under the regulated monopoly environment.
>
>     Fast forward by half a century, the Internet promotes distributed
> approaches. Few things can be controlled by limited couple parties. The
> decision of go or no-go is made by parties in the field who have their own
> respective considerations. Accumulated, they set the direction of the
> Internet. In this case, IPv6 has had the opportunity of over four decades
> of planning and nearly two decades of deployment. Its future growth rate is
> set by its own performance merits. No one can force its rate by persuasion
> tactic of any kind. Hoping so is wishful thinking which contributes to
> wasteful activities. So, we need realistic planning.
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-12 18:42)
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-12 01:34, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> The problem isn't the quantity of "inside" CG-NAT address space.  It's the
> existence of CG-NAT at all.
>
> It doesn't matter if the available space is a /12 or a /4, you still need
> something to translate it to the public internet.   The existence of that
> CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's side and every provider that has
> one wants to make it go away as quickly as possible.
>
> The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the need for any
> CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space.  As I pointed out, IPv6 is
> already ready and proven to work so moving to IPv6 is a straightforward
> process technically.  What isn't straightforward is convincing IPv4 users
> to move.  Until the cost (or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the cost
> to move,  we're going to see continued resistance to doing so.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 7:36 PM 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)
>>
>>
>
>
> <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_-2264817505018915121_m_-871507042037526857_m_-3709659627675338528_m_5461191486991014945_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240113/08c1b123/attachment.html>