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

Fri Apr 1 21:44:33 UTC 2022

Hi, Pascal:

1)    " ... for the next version. ... ":    I am not sure that I can 
wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I 
asked for an IP packet header example of your proposal is to visualize 
what do you mean by the model of "realms and shafts in a multi-level 
building". The presentation in the draft  sounds okay, because the 
floors are physically isolated from one another. And, even the building 
is isolated from other buildings. This is pretty much how PBX numbering 
plan worked.

2)    When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, 
however, you are essential talking about covering the entire surface of 
the earth. Then, there is no isolated buildings with isolated floors to 
deploy your model anymore. There is only one spherical layer of physical 
earth surface for you to use as a realm, which is the current IPv4 
deployment. How could you still have multiple full IPv4 address sets 
deployed, yet not seeing their identical twins, triplets, etc.? Are you 
proposing multiple spherical layers of "realms", one on top of the other?

2)    When I cited the DotConnectAfrica graphic logo as a visual model 
for the EzIP deployment over current IPv4, I was pretty specific that 
each RAN was tethered from the current Internet core via one IPv4 
address. We were very careful about isolating the netblocks in terms of 
which one does what. In other words, even though the collection of RANs 
form a parallel cyberspace to the Internet, you may look at each RAN as 
an isolated balloon for others. So that each RAN can use up the entire 
240/4 netblock.

Please clarify your configuration.

Thanks,

Abe (2022-04-01 17:44)

On 2022-04-01 10:55, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> On 2022-04-01 10:00, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>
>> Makes sense, Abe, for the next version.
>>
>> Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT device 
>> can only talk to another IPv6 device, where that other device may use 
>> a YATT address or any other IPv6 address.
>>
>> But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby steps 
>> for those who want to.
>>
>> Keep safe;
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
>> *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
>> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>; Pascal Thubert 
>> (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com>; Justin Streiner <streinerj at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not 
>> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>>
>> 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
>>     <mailto:pthubert at cisco.com>]
>>     *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
>>     *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>
>>     <mailto:vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>; Justin Streiner
>>     <streinerj at gmail.com> <mailto:streinerj at gmail.com>; Abraham Y.
>>     Chen <aychen at avinta.com> <mailto: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.
>>
>> Image removed by sender. 
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com 
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> 
>>
>>
>

-- 
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/ec0685d2/attachment.html>