Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201503.AYC

Sun Nov 20 22:00:45 UTC 2022

Dear Rubens:

0) Very good question. It is right to the point!

1) Initially, we thought that we were doing conventional protocol 
development engineering that was triggered by our curiosity about why 
IPv4 address pool was depleted. So, IETF Draft was the natural place to 
report what we were doing.

2)  As time went on, it became evident that our scheme was rather 
unorthodox. That is, it was surprisingly simpler than any other known 
techniques. As well, the benefits were more and better than we could 
have dreamed for. At the same time, developed countries such as US where 
I was in, were not in any material need for IPv4 addresses, yet 
promoting IPv6. Not being able to sort out this contradiction, it was 
necessary to keep a continuous public record as IETF Draft revisions of 
EzIP evolution as we continued to refine our scheme which had turned 
into a concise system engineering solution, or almost appeared to be a 
marketing trick.

3)  In a sense, we have been purposely publishing our work on the web 
(beyond IETF Draft) to invite critiques. So far, we have not received 
any explicit feedback pointing to its flaws, while there have been more 
than a couple subtle confirmations from rather senior Internet experts. 
I am sure that you would understand that we can not disclose the latter 
on our own. Nevertheless, they do enforce our confidence in the EzIP plan.

4)  In anticipation of your next question, I would like to add the 
following. To be sure that our discovery is protected from being claimed 
by others and then its fair use discouraged, the essence of the EzIP 
concept was submitted to US Patent Office and has been granted with US 
Pat. No. 11,159,425. This assures that EzIP may be openly discussed to 
reach as much general public as possible.

Hope the above background recap is sufficient to clear your concerns. I 
look forward to our additional exchanges.

Regards,

Abe (2022-11-20 17:00 EST)

On 2022-11-20 13:41, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:03 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mark:
>>
>> 0)  I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
>>
>> 1)  The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an
>> in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not
>> rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved.
> If IETF does not need to be involved, why have you submitted 12
> versions of your Internet draft to IETF ?
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/
>
> Rubens

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com