Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Fri Apr 1 13:49:24 UTC 2022

Hi, Pascal:

What I would appreciate is an IP packet header design/definition layout, 
word-by-word, ideally in bit-map style, of an explicit presentation of 
all IP addresses involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the 
second realm. This will provide a clearer picture of how the real world 
implementation may look like.

Thanks,

Abe (2022-04-01 09:48)

On 2022-04-01 08:49, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>
> As I understand: “IPv4 Realms” between “Shaft” should be capable to 
> have a plain IPv4 header (or else why all of these).
>
> Then Gateway in the Shaft should change headers (from IPv4 to IPv6).
>
> Who should implement this gateway and why? He should be formally 
> appointed to such an exercise, right?
>
> Map this 2 level hierarchy to the real world – you may fail with this.
>
> Ed/
>
> *From:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert at cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>; Justin Streiner 
> <streinerj at gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not 
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
> Hello Eduard:
>
> Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot 
> be a Default Free Zone?
>
> I agree with your real world issue that some things will have to be 
> planned between stake holders, and that it will not be easy.
>
> But you know what the French say about “impossible”.
>
> Or to paraphrase Sir Arthur, now that we have eliminated all the 
> impossible transition scenarios, whatever remains…
>
> There will be YADA prefixes just like there are root DNS. To be 
> managed by different players as you point out. And all routable within 
> the same shaft.
>
> Keep safe;
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>
> *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com>; Justin Streiner 
> <streinerj at gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not 
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> In general, your idea to create a hierarchy is good.
>
> In practice, it would fail because you have created a virtual 
> hierarchy that does not map to any administrative border. Who should 
> implement gateways for the “Shaft”? Why?
>
> If you would appoint Carrier as the Shaft responsible then it is not 
> enough bits for Shaft.
>
> If you would appoint Governments as the Shaft responsible then would 
> be a so big scandal that you would regret the proposal.
>
> Hence, I do not see proper mapping for the hierarchy to make YADA 
> successful.
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* NANOG 
> [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com at nanog.org 
> <mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com at nanog.org>] *On 
> Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
> *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM
> *To:* Justin Streiner <streinerj at gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen 
> <aychen at avinta.com>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not 
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
> For the sake of it, Justin, I just published 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.
>
> The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range in an 
> IPv4-only world. For some people that might be enough and I’m totally 
> fine with that.
>
> Keep safe;
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com at nanog.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Justin Streiner
> *Sent:* dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
> *To:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not 
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
> Abe:
>
> To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from 
> working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via 
> IPv4.  I have seen no evidence of that.
>
> I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll 
> leave that for others who are more knowledgeable on that to speak up 
> if they're so inclined.
>
> Thank you
>
> jms
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>
>     1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ":  
>     After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic
>     issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to
>     introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If
>     you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are
>     eager to learn about it. Thanks.
>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220401/eefb8b3a/attachment.html>