Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211211223.AYC

Mon Nov 21 22:16:50 UTC 2022

Dear Tom:

1)  As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So 
that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.

2) Hint: I signed up to NANOG.org only early this year. So, whatever you 
have in mind might be from somewhere else. In addition, even though I do 
not have good memory, I do not leave a loose end to any  technical 
discussion with substance. The revisions of the EzIP documentation have 
always been improving the presentation style for easing the reader's 
efforts, not about modifying our basic scheme. So, you need to be clear 
about the topics that you are referring to. Thanks.

Regards,

Abe (2022-11-21 17:16 EST)

On 2022-11-21 13:23, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>     1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
>     examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues
>     on this forum can understand.
>
>
> Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to 
> the proposal in the past on this list.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     Dear Tom:
>
>     1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
>     examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
>     colleagues
>     on this forum can understand.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>
>     Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)
>
>
>
>
>     On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
>     >
>     >     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
>     >
>     >
>     > For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is not an
>     > 'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the
>     > authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no
>     interest
>     > from anyone involved in internet standards, and for
>     various technical
>     > reasons , likely never will.
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 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
>     >
>     >     2)  If this looks a bit too technical due to the nature of
>     such a
>     >     document, there is a distilled version that provides a
>     bird-eye's
>     >     view
>     >     of the solution:
>     >
>     > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>     >
>     >     3)  All of the above can start from making use of the 240/4
>     >     netblock as
>     >     a reusable (by region / country) unicast IP address
>     resources that
>     >     could
>     >     be accomplished by as simple as commenting out one line of the
>     >     existing
>     >     network router program code. I will be glad to go into the
>     >     specifics if
>     >     you can bring their attention to this almost mystic topic.
>     >
>     >     Regards,
>     >
>     >
>     >     Abe (2022-11-19 22:50 EST)
>     >
>     >
>     >     On 2022-11-18 18:20, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >> On Nov 18, 2022, at 03:44, Joe Maimon
>     <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Mark Tinka wrote:
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>> You could instead use a /31.
>     >     >>> We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of
>     >     CPE's that may or may not support this. Having unique
>     designs per
>     >     customer does not scale well.
>     >     >> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should
>     >     make it mandatory.
>     >     > Much of Africa in 2023 runs on what the US put into the resale
>     >     market in the late 1990s, tragically.
>     >     >
>     >     >> Its 2023, your folk should be able to handle addressing more
>     >     advanced than from the 90s. And your betting the future on IPv6?
>     >     > They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
>     >     >
>     >     >>> To be honest, we'll keep using IPv4 for as long as we
>     have it,
>     >     and for as long as we can get it from AFRINIC. But it's not
>     where
>     >     we are betting the farm - that is for IPv6.
>     >     > And yet you wonder why I consider AFRINIC’s artificial
>     extension
>     >     of the free pool through draconian austerity measures to be a
>     >     global problem?
>     >     >
>     >     >> Its on Afrinic to try and preserve their pool if they wish to
>     >     by doing things such as getting it across that progress in
>     >     addressing efficiency is an important consideration in
>     fulfilling
>     >     requests for additional resources.
>     >     > Instead of this, they’re mostly ignoring policy, implementing
>     >     draconian restrictions on people getting space from the free
>     pool,
>     >     and buying into various forms of reality avoidance.
>     >     >
>     >     >> But see the crux above. If your RiR isnt frowning on such
>     >     behavior then its poor strategy to implement it.
>     >     > So far, AFRINIC has given a complete pass to Tinka’s
>     >     organization and their documented excessive unused address space
>     >     despite policy that prohibits them from doing so. However,
>     AFRINIC
>     >     management and board seem to have extreme difficulty with
>     reading
>     >     their governing documents in anything resembling a logical
>     >     interpretation.
>     >     >
>     >     > Owen
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software.
>     > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com> <http://www.avast.com>
>     >
>

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