202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
Abraham Y. Chen
aychen at avinta.com
Tue Mar 8 15:46:44 UTC 2022
0) Thanks to your thoughts.
1) First, logistics: Since this was my first post to this Forum, I
got an auto-response stating that my post was being moderated. Then, I
got your message even before I received any follow-up notice from such,
nor my writing being published. Are you responding to the general
distribution or acting as a moderator?
2) " .... an overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4. ....
": We started our work due to curiosity. As we made progresses in
various areas, quite a few topics have distilled to a different yet much
clearer picture. Allow me to describe the current EzIP proposal with
respect to these aspects:
A. "overly convoluted": EzIP proposes to make use of the
long-reserved 240/4 NetBlock by utilizing the RFC791 to carry it.
However, this is only needed for the long term full end-to-end
deployment. For the immediate EzIP configuration that is for supporting
the current Server / Client (Master /Slave) model (similar to the
current CG-NAT, or CDN), EzIP will be using a degenerated configuration
which we call it RAN (Regional Area Network) where the standard IPv4
packet header will be suffice, even without the RFC791. I believe these
schemes are opposite to "convoluted".
B. "tunnel": Instead of tunneling in the current sense of 6to4
tunneling, or similar, which interacts with the parameters of
transmission environment, EzIP is an */overlay/* network consisting of
RANs (Regional Area Networks), each is tethered from the current
Internet via one IPv4 public address. Since each RAN appears to be a
private network to the Internet core, pretty much everything in the RAN
is independent of the latter. Direct communications between IoTs
residing in separate RANs, when needed, will still be carried by native
IPv4 packets (with the addition of Option Words carrying IoTs' Source
and Destination addresses within the host RANs, respectively).
Could you please clarify your characterizations of the above?
Abe (2022-03-08 10:46)
On 2022-03-08 09:09, Tom Beecher wrote:
> I recall reading the IETF draft some time ago. It seemed like an
> overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4.
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 8:50 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
> 0) I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that
> cited our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for
> Easy IPv4). (Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the
> discussion and the highlighted text where the citation was made.)
> 1) As the lead investigator of the EzIP Project, I would like
> to formally introduce our solution by bringing your attention to
> an overview whitepaper:
> In a nutshell, EzIP proposes to disable the program codes in
> current routers that have been disabling the use of the 240/4
> NetBlock. The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
> The EzIP deployment architecture is the same as that of the
> existing CG-NAT (Carrier Grade Network Address Translation).
> Consequently, there is no need to modify any hardware equipment.
> There is an online setup description (Reference II), called RAN
> (Regional Area Network), that demonstrates the feasibility of this
> 2) There are additional consequential benefits by deploying
> EzIP, such as those mentioned by our comment to Reference III in
> the above whitepaper.
> I look forward to addressing your thoughts.
> Abe (2022-03-07 17:14 EST)
> VP Engineering
> Avinta Communications, Inc.
> Milpitas, CA 95035 USA
> Skype: Abraham.Y.Chen
> eMail: AYChen at Avinta.com
> WebSite: www.Avinta.com <http://www.Avinta.com>
> Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> *Greg Skinner* gregskinner0 at icloud.com
> /Mon Nov 29 18:47:14 UTC 2021/
> * Previous message (by thread): Class D addresses? was:
> Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> * Next message (by thread): Class E addresses? 240/4 history
> * *Messages sorted by:* [ date ]
> [ thread ]
> [ subject ]
> [ author ]
> >/On Nov 24, 2021, at 5:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us
> <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: />//>/On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad <drc at
> <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: />>>/I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the />>//>>/Lots of people said similar things when 22.214.171.124/8
> <http://126.96.36.199/8> was allocated to APNIC />>/and they said similar things when 188.8.131.52/24 <http://184.108.40.206/24>
> was stood up as an />>/experiment by Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 220.127.116.11 seems to be
> pretty popular. />//>/Hi David, />//>/I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility />/concerns with 18.104.22.168/8 <http://22.214.171.124/8>. If you do, feel free
> to refresh my memory. As />/I recall it, there were concerns with prior local use and potential />/trash traffic. It seemed likely those concerns could be addressed
> with />/experiments, and the experiments in fact addressed them. />//>/The prior local use worry reared its head again with 240/4 but given />/the prior experience with 126.96.36.199/8 <http://188.8.131.52/8> I don't
> personally believe we need />/to re-run that experiment just because the numbers are part of a />/different block. />//>//>>/Seems to me that a number of folks on this list and during this />>/discussion would disagree with a blanket assertion that 240/4 />>/is “dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet” - some of them even />>/wrote a draft discussing the possibility. />//>/Line them up. Show of hands. Who really thinks that if we assign />/240.0.0.1 to a customer tomorrow without waiting for anyone to clean />/up their software and hardware, you won't get enough complaints
> about />/things not working that you have to take it back and assign a />/different address instead? />//>//>>/1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" />>//>>/OK, but this seems like a quibble. The status for 240/4 is “ />>/RESERVED: designated by the IETF for specific non-global-unicast />>/purposes as noted.” The “as noted” part is “Future Use”. />//>/It's not a quibble. Some vendors take the current status to mean />/"treat it like unicast until we're told otherwise." Others take the />/status to mean, "packets with these addresses are bogons without a />/defined routing behavior until we're told otherwise." The result is />/incompatible behavior between vendors. Changing that direction to />/"treat it like unicast" without ambiguity is not a quibble. />//>/Regards, />/Bill Herrin />//>/-- />/William Herrin />/bill at herrin.us <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog> />/https://bill.herrin.us/ /
> For what it’s worth, I’ve been tracking this issue on other netops mailing lists. There is a recent post on the LACNOG list from Leandro Bertholdo
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008895.html> referencing
> a draft proposing another way to make additional IPv4 address
> space available I haven’t had time to read the draft closely, but
> I noticed that it involves the use of 240/4. Subsequent googling
> about the draft turned up a presentation
> describing how the techniques described could be deployed. I noticed that the presentation
> made reference to OpenWRT, so perhaps the authors are aware of the work that the authors of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project have done in that area.
> The adaptive-ipv4 draft will expire sometime next month, so anyone interested in seeing it move forward should contact the authors.
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG