CC:s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Anne Mitchell amitchell at isipp.com
Tue Mar 8 16:33:31 UTC 2022


> Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0 at icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay" <Director at iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati <rama_ati at outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner at gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing at ieee.org>, "Chen, Henry C.J." <hcjchen at avinta.com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc at gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen at alum.mit.edu>
> 

This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list.  One wonders with this many cc:s, how many bcc:s there also were, and to whom.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)


> On Mar 8, 2022, at 8:46 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Tom:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
>> 
>>     https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>> 
>>     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 approach.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Abe (2022-03-07 17:14 EST)
>> VP Engineering
>> Avinta Communications, Inc.
>> Milpitas, CA 95035 USA
>> +1(408)942-1485
>> Skype: Abraham.Y.Chen
>> eMail: AYChen at Avinta.com
>> WebSite: www.Avinta.com
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************
>> 
>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/216766.html
>> 
>> 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
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> >
>>  
>> 
>> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> >>>
>>  I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the
>> 
>> >>
>>  
>> 
>> >> Lots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8
>>  was allocated to APNIC
>> 
>> >> and they said similar things when 1.1.1.0/24
>>  was stood up as an
>> 
>> >>
>>  experiment by Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 1.1.1.1 seems to be pretty popular.
>> 
>> >
>>  
>> 
>> >
>>  Hi David,
>> 
>> >
>>  
>> 
>> >
>>  I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility
>> 
>> > concerns with 1.0.0.0/8
>> . 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 1.0.0.0/8
>>  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://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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/
>>  
>> <
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/
>> >, 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 
>> <
>> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf> 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.
>> 
>> —gregbo
>> 
>> *******************
>> 
>> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list