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

Tue Nov 22 03:51:15 UTC 2022

Much of India operates this way today.

Owen

> On Nov 21, 2022, at 15:06, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (forwarded to break thread since this is a different topic)
> What's the group's current thought on emergence or prevalence of
> IPv6-only hosts ? Will they exist soon, in some time or in a very long
> time?
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <bzs at theworld.com>
> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
> To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion is ignore anyone who says it would be too difficult to
> get people to adopt a change or take too long. Someone always says
> that, a reasonable riposte is "what would be a reasonable number of
> people / years?" Surely they must have some numbers in mind, no?
> 
> We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with
> very limited success so perhaps that's a pretty time to shoot for, for
> example. Anything less than 30 years would be an improvement.
> 
> I suppose some might leap on that as evidence of the above cautions
> but it's really not. It's just being argumentative. It feels like a
> reasonable argument pattern but it's not because it ignores why that
> previous attempt mostly failed and tries to equate them (we failed for
> 30 years so therefore you will fail for 30 years???)
> 
> That said, what's needed is a working demo preferably within both a
> simulation environment and live because the devil is always in the
> details and the only way to vet that is by testing working code.
> 
> A mere proposal is of some value, one can glance at it and try to spot
> any fatal flaws for example. But it's only a tiny step along the path.
> 
> However, that it might take a while to become adopted is, to me, like
> saying forget trying to mitigate climate change, it'll take decades
> and require hundreds of govts, thousands of industries, and billions
> of people to change their behavior which is all true but hardly an
> argument as to why not to try.
> 
> Aside: A pretty good rule of thumb with replacement technologies is
> that something has to be 10x better than what it replaces to get wide
> adoption. Ok maybe not 10, that's a figure of speech, but a lot, and
> certainly not introduce impediments to its own adoption and use.
> 
> On November 21, 2022 at 12:00 beecher at beecher.cc (Tom Beecher) wrote:
>>    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."
>> 
>> 
>> Some friendly feedback. The phrase "all that needs to be done" , is
>> exceptionally reductive, and in the case of internet standards, also always
>> going to end up being wrong.
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:19 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>> 
>>    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
>> 
> 
> --
>        -Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*