<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Dear Owen:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">0) You rapid fired a
few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and
crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will start
from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the
correct leads.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">1) " ... 240/4 is way
more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it
were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that
much life for IPv4.
... ": Perhaps you have not bothered to scan through a two
page whitepaper (URL below, again) that I submitted a week or so
ago? It promises simple implementation and significant increase
of assignable IPv4 addresses, even extendable to the similar
size of IPv6 if we could forgo our mentality about the IP
addresses as "Personal Properties", by switching to treat them
as "Natural Resources".<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf">https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf</a><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">2) " ... so that
content providers can start turning off v4 where it’s costing
them money to support it.
.... " & "... Content providers turning off v4 face
competition from content providers that don’t. ... ": These
two statements appeared to come from two separate posting of
yours. They seemed to be contradicting each other. Did I misread
somehow?<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Now from the last post
below:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">3) " ... 240/4 is
way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if
it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that
much life for IPv4.... ": Please see information provided by
Pt. 1) above.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">4) " ... I think it
should be reclassified from never going to be used into some
part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its
important that happens now, better late then never ... Please
feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area
numbers. :p
... ": I am in full agreement with you. Our proposal is
the solution in Pt. 1) above.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">5) " ... if we
continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6 on
bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, ....
": This is not a productive opinion. Please do not forget
that the Internet heavily promotes personal freedom. One can not
force others to do something that they do not believe in.
Stopping them from doing one thing does not automatically make
them to do what you like. A project must have its own merits
that attract contribution. The failure of the IPv6 actually
started from when a decision was made to the effect of "not to
emphasize backward compatibility with IPv4" which broke one of
the golden rules in system engineering. Not recognizing such and
focusing to find a way for remedying it, but continuing to force
others to migrate to IPv6 camp with various tactics does not
foster progress.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">6) " ... The problem
is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. ... ":
EzIP is a parallel experiment to the current Internet (not only
IPv4, but also IPv6) operations, because its overlay
architecture on the latter demarcates everything happening on it
from the Internet. As long as packets exchanged between the two
conform to the established Internet protocols, an EzIP
deployment (called RAN - Regional Area Network) will appear as
innocent as an ordinary private network.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Regards,</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Abe (2022-03-25 12:24)</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"></font><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-24 21:25, Owen DeLong via
NANOG wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:73055A82-044E-406E-B981-0DC1ADE86BF4@delong.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:49, Joe Maimon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com"><jmaimon@jmaimon.com></a> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com"><jmaimon@jmaimon.com></a> wrote:
In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its important that happens now, better late then never. Whether its GUA or not or a mix of whatever, whether it buys months or years will depend greatly on how its actually used if it is ever used.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Please feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be wrong. IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, but the same ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort asked from the unwilling is to support cutting the red tape frustrating the willing. A hearty round of knock yourself out from the right folk in the right place and time and we dont have to debate this particular point ever again.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Certainly, if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6 on bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, we will continue to fail and further delay IPv6 reaching a level of deployment that allows us to start turning down IPv4 and beginning to recognize the cost savings that come from moving forward.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That alone is enough reason for me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. We’re talking about an optional activity which will inherently pull resources away from a necessary activity, thus delaying the necessary activity and becoming somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence I oppose this wasteful experiment in favor of doing what we all know eventually needs to be done.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that keep moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely to increase deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own limited fashion much as I do 240/4.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That Ipv6 address allocation schemes and proposals tended to enlarge over time, using up more bits heading from right to left.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Meh… I haven’t seen too much of that. I’ve been guilty of a certain amount of it, to be sure, but we’re only recently seeing the two largest RIRs start working through their second /12s even though it’s been years since I pushed for (and achieved) nibble-boundary round-ups as the norm in the ARIN region.
I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro allocations to their customers.
Owen
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>