Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Abraham Y. Chen
aychen at avinta.com
Sat Apr 2 16:23:50 UTC 2022
Hi, Pascal:
0) As the good old saying stated: "A picture is worth one thousand
words." Let's take advantage of such a teaching.
1) Focusing at just the text before and after Figure 1 of your below
draft, I found:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-01
A. " In the analogy of a building, */the ground floor would be
the Interne/*t, and each additional floor would be */another IPv4
realm/*. ... analog to */the full IPv4/**/addressing /*that is
available in each realm. ": Unless there is certain hidden refinement
that I could not decipher, the combination of the three phrases
highlighted above by me seems to refer to the entire IPv4 netblock,
addresses and practices, etc., all inclusive. (By the way, the phrase
"ground floor" appears to contradict the "(current IPv4 Internet)" label
in the figure that is on the top floor (realm 1) of a building. Unless,
you are presenting an underground building? But, we can regard this as a
minor typo.)
B. " ... A single /24 IPv4 prefix assigned allows for*/> 250
times the capacity of the Internet as we know it /*... ": Are you
visualizing that your YADA / YATT draft proposes creating >250 layers of
cyberspace, each with the same capacity of the current Internet? If so,
it will be fantastic. Then, how can you physically deploying that many
layers, each fully covering the entire globe, yet without stepping on
one another's toes (the identical IP addresses packed >250 deep)? That
is, I failed to imagine what kind of mechanism that you have for
isolating the layers, such as populating people accordingly.
Please clarify.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-02 12:22 EDT)
On 2022-04-02 04:56, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> That does not need to be long, Abe.
>
> There’s no minimal interval between version. I already published 01…
> And I do not have a special address format beyond what’s in the draft
> already. It’s only IPv4 and IPv6. No new address format. Just assigned
> ranges, and well known IIDs.
>
> To your point: the addresses in each realm are the full IPv4 that we
> know and they cannot talk directly between realms. They are indeed
> isolated. Nodes in different floors can only communicate through the
> shaft. Think of a human and a stairwell. The physical space reserved
> for the stair well at each level is the same. What people do with the
> rest of the space is their own. All addresses and AS numbers are reusable.
>
> I do not see you image of a sphere. My image of a sphere is IPv6,
> that contains all the IPv4 “planes”, the shaft, and all the air in
> between.
>
> You design uses the internet as shaft if you like. In that we differ.
> YADA leaves the internet as is, and allows to build other internets
> that cannot leak in one another. But participating nodes can
> communicate through the shaft.
>
> If end nodes do not participate, then a stateful Nat is still needed.
> For most homes that means an upgrade of the stateful NAT in the
> gateway so the public side has a YATT format, and DNS snooping to
> provide a A record inside. Same for PLATs. For most servers, that
> means an update in the load balancer, and a NAT if there was none, to
> allow to speak to other realms. Whatever happened in the current IPv4
> can still do. Some levels can be created IPv6 only from the start,
> providing YATT addresses to those who need to communicate with the
> other levels.
>
> Keep safe;
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 23:45
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com>; Vasilenko Eduard
> <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.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:
>
> 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>
> <mailto:aychen at avinta.com>
> *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>
> <mailto:vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>; Pascal Thubert
> (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com> <mailto:pthubert at cisco.com>;
> Justin Streiner <streinerj at gmail.com> <mailto:streinerj at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> <mailto: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/20220402/446d0fe7/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list