Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Mon Nov 21 16:18:29 UTC 2022

Dear Mark:

0) Thanks for the clarification. I understand. A short message through 
the cyberspace, especially between parties who have never met can be 
easily skewed. I am glad that I asked you, instead of taking it 
negatively without raising my hand.

1) "...I'd, rather, expend those resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c. ... 
": Since EzIP is still being further refined, it may not be clear in our 
documentation about how much work is required to get the IPv4 out of the 
current depletion mode. As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The 
Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing 
software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock." 
In fact, we have found examples that this means commenting out one line 
code that searches for then discards packets with 240/4 addressing. It 
seems to me that there is no easier task than this.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

Regards,

Abe (2022-11-21 11:18 EST)

On 2022-11-20 23:56, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen 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. 
>> Especially, its first step of disabling one line of existing 
>> networking program code empowers any party to begin deploying EzIP 
>> stealthily for mitigating the IPv4 address pool depletion issues. 
>> Note that EzIP is a generic solution applicable to everyone, not 
>> limited to Africa.
>>
>> 2)  Of course, constructive criticism is always appreciated. However, 
>> unspecific comments that confuse and distract the readers only 
>> provide dis-service to those disadvantaged population who are 
>> enduring the handicaps of being the late-comers to the Internet.
>
> My comment was not directed at you. Sorry.
>
> I have nothing against the EzIP proposal. It just does not add any 
> real value in solving the IPv4 depletion problem for the amount of 
> effort required to implement it, in my view. I'd, rather, expend those 
> resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c.
>
> Mark.
>

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