Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above

Sun Nov 20 21:15:10 UTC 2022

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:53 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> Dear Owen:
>
> 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives. ...":
> Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look at the
> below IETF Draft:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space

Hi Abraham,

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm having some
trouble understanding the deployment model for EzIP.  Perhaps you
could help clear it up for me?

A non-EzIP web server is only going to see the global destination
IP address and TCP port number as the unique session identifiers
for communication, so the vast amount of additional IP space you
postulate existing behind the SPR functionally collapses down into
the 64K TCP port range available today in traditional port-based NAT
setups.  As long as the top 50 websites aren't EzIP-aware, there appears
to be no benefit for an ISP to deploy EzIP, because it doesn't actually
gain them anything beyond what existing CG-NAT devices already provide
as far as their web-browsing customer base is concerned.  Most of their
communication will still be port-based-NAT, with all the headaches and
restrictions inherent in that.

And for the top 50 websites, there's a lot of expense and absolutely no
upside
involved in deploying EzIP.  They don't care about how much IP space you
have
behind your NAT device, and whether it's uniquely identifiable within your
local
realm; it's not information they can access for tracking users, as they
don't know
what your internal mapping is, so they'll continue to rely on browser
cookies and
the like for tracking actual user sessions, regardless of the IP addressing
format
being used.

So, you've got a model where there's functionally almost no benefit to the
end user
until the major websites start deploying EzIP-aware infrastructure, and
there's
pretty much no incentive for major websites to spend money upgrading their
infrastructure to support EzIP, because it provides no additional benefit
for them.

This is pretty much exactly the same conundrum that IPv6 faced (and still
faces
today).  I don't see why EzIP is any better than IPv6 or CG-NAT in terms of
solving
the IPv4 address shortage problem, and it seems to involve more expense for
web
providers, because it requires them to deploy additional SPR mapping
routers into
their infrastructure in order to use it, with essentially no additional
benefit.

Is there a piece to the picture I'm not understanding correctly?

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20221120/e32ece94/attachment.html>