Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

Abraham Y. Chen aychen at
Tue Mar 15 20:27:05 UTC 2022

Hi, Tom:

1)    " .... better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF 
channels. ": Thanks for the recommendation. I would appreciate very much 
if you could guide us to the specific contact. Before we attempt to do 
so, however, it would be prudent to report the history of our team's 

     A.    The first IETF Draft on EzIP Project started from 2016-12 as 
instructed by the ISE (Independent Submission Editor). Although, at that 
time Working Group SunSet4 had been in session for awhile. But, we were 
not aware of, nor being informed about such.

     B.    In Summer of 2018, we discovered that SunSet4 had Concluded. 
We contacted the person in charge of keeping an eye on possible future 
IPv4 activities, but did not receive any instruction to revise our course.

     C.    Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. 
Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.

     D.    I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 
requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.

     Hope you can help us to close the loose ends.

2)    In the meantime, we realized that the simplest implementation of 
the EzIP proposal is to replace the 100.64/10 netblock used by CG-NAT 
with the 240/4 netblock. Next, taking advantage of the much larger 
address pool to begin practicing static address assignment related 
disciplines, a "packetized PSTN" is realized. From such a base, the EzIP 
powered CG-NAT behaving as an overlay network in parallel to the 
existing Internet for providing the same services, many of the drawbacks 
in the latter are mitigated! So, we decided to discuss the EzIP proposal 
directly with the NANOG colleagues, because the EzIP deployment can 
actually be rather stealthy.

I look forward to your thoughts.


Abe (2022-03-15 16:26)

On 2022-03-14 14:48, Tom Beecher wrote:
> If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's 
> probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF 
> channels.
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at> wrote:
>     Hi, Fred:
>     0)    Thank you for a set of references.
>     1)    We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them,
>     because it was the first and only one that clearly stated its
>     limitation (Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was
>     written by three top APNIC officials. Later efforts on this topic
>     have not introduced (based on my reading) any more essence to the
>     topic.
>     2)    "...  I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure
>     how to put it more simply....   ":    With your knowledge of the
>     past, you are uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However,
>     it would be more expedient for everyone, if you could first read
>     through at least the Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF
>     Draft, before commenting. This is because EzIP proposal is based
>     on the same general idea as the references you cited, but with a
>     slight extra step that produced a series of surprising results. In
>     particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our hearts before
>     proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while reviewing
>     our work. Thanks,
>     Regards,
>     Abe (2022-03-14 14:39)
>     ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15
>     Message: 17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker
>     <fredbaker.ietf at> <mailto:fredbaker.ietf at> To:
>     "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen at> <mailto:aychen at>,
>     William Herrin <bill at> <mailto:bill at> Cc: NANOG
>     <nanog at> <mailto:nanog at> Subject: Re:
>     202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:
>     <79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC at>
>     <mailto:79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC at>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 12, 2022, at
>     8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at>
>     <mailto:aychen at> wrote:
>>     2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.
>     I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related Internet Drafts
>     The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the definition of the address space would allow RIRs to sell more IPv4 address space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were handed out), there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's errand. If you want to have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing architecture with more addresses.
>     I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply.
>     ------------------------------
>     <>
>     	Virus-free.
>     <>
>     <#m_-3820859315811704609_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list