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

Mon Jan 15 22:08:05 UTC 2024

Hi, Forrest:

1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1): The initial deployment of EzIP overlay is only 
applying 240/4 to existing (IPv4 based) CG-NAT facility to become the 
overlaying RAN, plus upgrading RG-NATs (Routing / Residential NATs) to 
OpenWrt. So that none of the on-premises IoTs will sense any changes. I 
don't see how an upgrade of such equipment to IPv6 could be simpler and 
less work. Please elaborate.

2)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2):     Since the RAN still appear to be the original 
CG-NAT to the Internet through the same IPv4 link to the Internet core, 
services from Google, YouTube, etc. will not know something has changed 
either.

3)    " ... someone with enough market power is going to basically say 
"enough is enough"  ...  ":

     We need to look at this transition with a "Divide and Conquer" 
perspective. That is, the CG-NAT and consequently the RAN are part of 
IAP (Internet Access Provider) facility. While Google, YouTube, etc. are 
ICPs (Internet Content Providers). Relatively speaking, the IAP is like 
the hardware part of a system, while ICP is the software. They are two 
separate parts when combined will provide the service that customers 
want. Normally, these two parts are separate businesses, although some 
may be under the same owner in some situations. The scenario that you 
are proposing is like back to the old Bell System days when AT&T decided 
everything. I am sure that Internet players will try very hard to avoid 
being labelled as such.

Regards,

Abe (2024-01-15 00:02)

On 2024-01-13 03:30, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> 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>
>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240115/3f322442/attachment.html>