Fwd: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211220729.AYC

Wed Nov 23 04:23:36 UTC 2022

Dear Tom: **** Please disregard an earlier partial transmission of this 
MSG, caused by operator error. ***

1) One look at the NANOG archive that you retrieved tells me that we are 
the victims of the idiosyncrasies of the eMail system. Unlike snail 
mails that are slow but reliable (There was a story that USPS found a 
forty years old letter stuck in one of the mail collection boxes on 
Boston sidewalk and then delivered it.), eMails are fast (Once my eMail 
monitoring account started to receive a long message that I was sending 
out, even before it was fully sent.) but unpredictable from time to 
time. Unfortunately, most of us are conditioned with its daily behavior 
and do not suspect the electronic system hiccups (As Andrew Grove once 
said, "It is the software, not the hardware."). To deal with this kind 
of issues in none-real-time communications, I practice a discipline, 
started from VM and FAX, that I will do my best to respond within 24 
hours. I encourage my colleagues to start reminding me (either repeat 
the MSG or using alternative channels, such as SkyPe - My handle is 
"Abraham.Y.Chen"), if they do not hear from me after 48 hours on topics 
that they expect my response. This convention prevented much of the 
disruptions. Looking at your comments, I definitely would have responded 
back then if I saw them. One possibility is that I was in the midst of 
being overwhelmed by NANOG posting protocols, such as the digest mode, 
uni-code, personal writing styles, etc. and miseed your MSG. Anyway, 
allow me to try carrying on.

2)   "...Your proposal appears to rely on a specific value in the IP 
option header to create your overlay....": Not really, as soon as the 
100.64/10 netblock is replaced by the 240/4, each CG-NAT module can 
serve a very large area (such as Tokyo Metro and such) that becomes the 
RAN in EzIP terminology. Since each RAN is tethered from the existing 
Internet core by an umbilical cord operating on one IPv4 public address, 
this is like a kite floating in the sky which is the basic building 
block for the overlaying EzIP Sub-Internet when they expand wide enough 
to begin covering significant areas of the world. Note that throughout 
this entire process, the Option Word mechanism in the IP header does not 
need be used at all. (It turns out that utilizing the CG-NAT 
configuration as the EzIP deployment vehicle, the only time that the 
Option Word may be used is when subscribers in two separate RANs wishing 
to have end-to-end communication, such as direct private eMail exchanges.)

3) " ... to drop any packet with an IP option set that you don't 
explicitly want because a significant number of routers kick every 
packet with options to CPU, ... ": Yes, this was what we were reminded 
of when we started our study. However, this appears to be another 
Internet myth. Dr. Chimiak of the EnIP project (see EzIP Draft's 
Refernce 13) told me that his team had successfully sent packets with 
Option Words. Again, even if the existing routers do knock out packs 
with Option words, the overlay architecture of the RANs allows the 
search for those do allow this operation. Since the use of the Option 
Word turns out to be an option to superceed IPv4's capabilities, we 
should treat it as a consideration for future premium services.

4) " ...Any device that still treated 240/4 differently would need to be 
updated to treat it like anything else. .. ": Yes, this applies to 
regions that desire to enjoy the EzIP characteristics. Since the root of 
each RAN (or sub-RAN) still appears to be one of the current CG-NAT 
modules, there is no change can be detected by other CG-NAT modules. 
This avoids interoperability issues during the incremental deployment.

5) "  ...Any existing filters that dropped packets with *any* IP option 
set would have to be modified to permit the ones you define for 
EzIP....":  Since EzIP is not going to activate Option Words initially 
for enhancing the CG-NAT, this should not be a concern. In the future, 
inter-RAN communication by subscribers would use Option words. But, by 
that time, finite number of backbone / gateway routers among RANs 
capable of preserving Option Words would have been identified. This 
approach takes advantage of the hierarchical network configuration that 
CG-NAT has already been practicing implicitly.

6) "... ( At one point in the past, one big router vendor only allowed 
you to configure an ip-options filter based on the IANA defined values, 
not others. ) ...": Well, you are talking about the overly intertwined 
relationship between one big roouter vendor and the IANA which is 
sponsored by the former. So, this is not a technical but a "busniess" 
issue. We have talked with "white box" vendors. One assured us that EzIP 
can be quickly activated in thier programs if customers do ask for it.

7) "... This is a LOT of work and time for an overlay. ...":  You are 
probably visualizing a complete overlay network right from the 
beginning. The EzIP approach is gradual and incremental as outlined in 
the above descriptions. An EzIP deployment can be as small as a 
residential network because it was how we initially figured out this 
solution. It is based on parties who desire to participate, case by 
case. Those who don't, do not need to do anything, nor could notice any 
difference. All of these turn out to be the result of the fundametal 
Internet characteristics that can transmit every bit of compatible 
signals. Then, a sub-group of routers can link up with compatible nodes 
to form a new network on their own, which can coexist with, yet 
independent of the others (such as IPv4, IPv6, ARP, other as reported by 
AMS-IX).

I look forward to your thoughts,

Regards,

Abe (2022-11-22 23:22 EST)

On 2022-11-21 18:46, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> 1) As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So
> that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.
>
>
> I will start by citing one of my own responses to you :
>
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2022-March/218291.html
>
> I do not leave a loose end to any  technical
> discussion with substance.
>
>
> With the utmost amount of respect, you do.
>
> Many people on this list have provided specific , technical issues 
> with your proposal. Others have commented on non-technical, but 
> practical considerations. In all cases, you have simply handwaved them 
> away or not commented on them further.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >     >

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