Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Mar 28 21:27:56 UTC 2022


> On Mar 26, 2022, at 06:35 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Owen:
> 
> 0)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2):    This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it aside for now, until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme to you.
> 
> 00)    Re: Ur. Pt. 4):    Okay, I was concerned about how to decipher this cryptic exchange. So let's put it aside as well.
> 
> 1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1):    Yes, you are correct that the EzIP network architecture looks like that of CG-NAT. In fact, it is exactly the same. This is actually the beauty of the EzIP solution. That is, without touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (disabling the program code that has been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to universal peer-to-peer, where is any of such today? On the other hand, upon fully implemented the EzIP proposal (the second phase: making use of the Option Word in RFC791), an IoT in one RAN can directly reach a second IoT in another RAN world-wide. So that the original promise of the Internet will be finally fulfilled and for the long haul.

The fact that we gave up universal peer to peer in the name of survival until we could deploy a protocol with enough addresses doesn’t mean that giving it up is a good long term solution.

To me, the goal is to get away from address scarcity as quickly as possible. IPv6 does that. EzIP doesn’t. I have no desire to support prolonging the misery that has existed since NAT became popular. I view it as a disability to the internet and IPv6 eliminates that disability. EzIP arguably makes it even worse. So, what you call beauty is, IMHO, damage.

> 2)    Re: Ur. Pt. 3):    Similarly, you probably only recognized the part that EzIP proposes to classify the 240/4 netblock as the fourth private address in RFC1918, but overlooked that such capacity will enable a RAN to cover a geographic area as big as Tokyo Metro, or 75% of smaller countries around the world, even before utilizing the conventional three private netblocks. This puts 240/4 into a different league from the other three conventional private netblocks, although all four have basically the same technical characteristics. Now, visualizing each RAN is tethered from the existing Internet core by one umbilical cord (one IPv4 address), it appears like a private network. So that each RAN can provide Internet services by utilizing existing technologies, while avoiding those undesired. Combining these RANs around the world, an overlay layer of routers (SPRs) can operate in parallel to the current Internet. Under such a configuration, the latter no long is involved with daily local activities, but only carries inter-RAN traffic, very much like the division between national and international telephone networks. This creates quite a different operation landscape. Please have a look at slide # 11 of the below whitepaper for a rough breakdown of the available addresses under the EzIP scheme. Furthermore, if used diligently, (treating IP address as "natural resources" instead of "personal properties"), the assignable "EzIP addresses" can last quite awhile.

I didn’t overlook it, I routed around it as damage in the truest of internet traditions. Geographical-based addressing hierarchies have been proposed before. They have a long history of failing in the face of actual topology and actual operational concerns. This doesn’t look significantly different to me. It’s yet another entirely bad idea which serves only to prolong the IPv4 misery while diverting resources from useful work to enable the deprecation of IPv4 as the lingua franca of the internet backbone.

> 
>     https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf <https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf>  
> 
> 3)    Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6):    I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.

I’m not stopping anyone from anything. I’m stating that I believe resources would be better spent deploying IPv6 than being wasted on this project. Anyone who disagrees with me is, of course, free to waste their resources however they see fit.

In terms of backwards compatibility, there’s absolutely no way to do it. It’s mathematically impossible to squeeze a 128 bit address into a 32 bit field. Every system needed to be upgraded to handle 128 bit addresses at the OS, application, and all other layers of software. Routers needed upgrades to hardware for fast switching as well. That was inevitable in any increase in the address space. Claiming that IPv6 failed because of this “decision” is pretending that there was a decision to be made which presumes an alternative existed. The only way this could be achieved would be to abandon the end-to-end principle and permanently consign the internet to a fate involving widespread NAT. I’m very glad that decision was deemed unacceptable and I still believe it to be the right one.

Owen


> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Abe (2022-03-26 09:35 EDT)     
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022-03-25 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 25, 2022, at 18:47 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com <mailto:aychen at avinta.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ******  Resend to go through NANOG ******
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>>>> Dear Owen:
>>>> 
>>>> 0)    You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the correct leads.
>>>> 
>>>> 1)    " ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4. ...   ":     Perhaps you have not bothered to scan through a two page whitepaper (URL below, again) that I submitted a week or so ago? It promises simple implementation and significant increase of assignable IPv4 addresses, even extendable to the similar size of IPv6 if we could forgo our mentality about the IP addresses as "Personal Properties", by switching to treat them as "Natural Resources".
>>>> 
>>>>       https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf <https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf>
>> 
>> It still looks like NAT to me.
>> 
>> NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider model.
>> 
>> Your proposal perpetuates that problem.
>> 
>>>> 2)    " ...  so that content providers can start turning off v4 where it’s costing them money to support it. ....   " & "... Content providers turning off v4 face competition from content providers that don’t. ...  ":    These two statements appeared to come from two separate posting of yours. They seemed to be contradicting each other. Did I misread somehow?
>> 
>> No, it is not contradictory at all…
>> 
>> Content providers that have deployed IPv6 are eager to turn off IPv4 as soon as it won’t lose them customers. They are worried about losing customers because competition exists that might not turn off IPv4 at the same time they do. Thus, there is a need for customers to be IPv6 deployed before content providers can start turning off IPv4. Thus, the persistence of IPv4 in clients, especially enterprises, is costing content providers money.
>> 
>>>> Now from the last post below:
>>>> 
>>>> 3)    "  ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4....   ": Please see information provided by Pt. 1) above.
>> 
>> OK, so you want to extend RFC-1918 instead… Arguably even more worthless than reclassifying it as GUA. While it’s true that some very large deployments are short of RFC-1918 space, the reality is that the real shortage is in the GUA realm.
>> 
>>>> 4)    " ... I think it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its important that happens now, better late then never ... Please feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p ...    ":    I am in full agreement with you. Our proposal is the solution in Pt. 1) above.
>> 
>> That’s not me. That’s Joe Maimon IIRC. My part was “Pleas feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p.
>> 
>> It was mostly a snarky comment since neither BGP Router IDs nor OSPF Area numbers are actually IP addresses.
>> 
>>>> 5)    "  ...  if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6 on bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, .... ":    This is not a productive opinion. Please do not forget that the Internet heavily promotes personal freedom. One can not force others to do something that they do not believe in. Stopping them from doing one thing does not automatically make them to do what you like. A project must have its own merits that attract contribution. The failure of the IPv6 actually started from when a decision was made to the effect of "not to emphasize backward compatibility with IPv4" which broke one of the golden rules in system engineering. Not recognizing such and focusing to find a way for remedying it, but continuing to force others to migrate to IPv6 camp with various tactics does not foster progress.
>> 
>> We can agree to disagree about that… I think trying to continue to support IPv4 is not a productive opinion.
>> 
>>>> 6)    "  ... The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. ... ":    EzIP is a parallel experiment to the current Internet (not only IPv4, but also IPv6) operations, because its overlay architecture on the latter demarcates everything happening on it from the Internet. As long as packets exchanged between the two conform to the established Internet protocols, an EzIP deployment (called RAN - Regional Area Network) will appear as innocent as an ordinary private network.
>> 
>> Again, I disagree… You left out the relevant part of my quote where I stated that resources spent developing this mechanism are better used deploying IPv6.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>  <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> <x-msg://39/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220328/5be3089e/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list