<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">********** Resend to go through NANOG
***********<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-23 23:11, Abraham Y. Chen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:de69cecb-1a8c-4909-de6c-c0ee3d548918@avinta.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Dear Pascal:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">1) " Did you
propose this work at a WG in Vienna this week? ": No, but
I was invited to be a coauthor of a HuaWei study comparing
addressing schemes that was presented there. See material
attached.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">2) " <font
size="6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I coined the term
elevator shaft for the description below.... , but the
lawyer language is hard to parse for the rest of us so I
paraphrased and exemplified. ...</span></font> ": Well,
the lawyer got paid for his legalese. But, I doubt the essence
of your patent. (See more thoughts below.)</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">3) ".. <span
style="font-size:11.0pt">And I just picked 240.0.0.0/8 as an
example ... </span> ": This is not the way to link up
with another Intellectual Property work. You need to present
your implementation, before paraphrasing to others. Otherwise,
it is more than misleading.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">4) " <span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Now that you’re aware of the
possible prior art ...</span> ": Not too fast! As I
stated, neither myself nor the patent examiner of my case
found your work. And, I characterize your claim as "<span
style="font-size:13.5pt">more a general <i><b>concept</b></i><b><i>
</i></b></span></font>than practice.<font size="4">" So,
if the examiner did pick up your patent, he probably decided
to disregard it. What you need to understand is that the basic
criterion for granting a patent is:<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"> "The <b><i>first</i></b>
party who has the <b><i>original idea</i></b> that has been
reduced to <b><i>practice</i></b><b><i> </i></b>for teaching
the general public."</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"> I do not believe
that yours could pass such a simple test, not to mention that
the proposed header changes were so extensive compared to
EzIP's simple no-change approach (using only the
old-fashioned RFC791). <br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"> Note: There was a
historical issue about what qualified an Internet related work
for a patent (at least in US) around the turn of this century.
The most famous one was the "one-click purchase" scheme by
Amazon. Yours appear to be close to the other end of the
extreme, because fourteen years later (the patent life of
seventeen years is almost over) you are still paraphrasing,
without a working model to show. I do not want to burden
colleagues on this List with the details. If you want, I can
give you a run-down offline.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">5) " <span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> I guess we need to continue that
discussion on an IETF ML rather than here, </span> ":
Let me know where you feel is more appropriate, after you have
reviewed the above.</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 (2022-03-23 23:10
EDT)</font><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-23 12:47, Pascal Thubert
(pthubert) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CO1PR11MB48815623870B5D6700B0CBB2D8189@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Abe:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Neat </span></font><font
face="Segoe UI Emoji"><span style="font-family:"Segoe
UI Emoji",sans-serif">😊</span></font> Did you
propose this work at a WG in Vienna this week?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Just a few points:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">* I coined the term elevator
shaft for the description below. I just thought that it
may help visualize this story; figuring the Internet as
a 2-D flat in a building, and the special prefix bring a
3<sup>rd</sup> dimension to interconnect levels as an
elevator shaft does in the building. The 20 year old IPR
did not use that term or that example, it was more
generic than that, but the lawyer language is hard to
parse for the rest of us so I paraphrased and
exemplified.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">* And I just picked 240.0.0.0/8
as an example to show that you can easily build 1000000
parallel Internets because it was discussed in another
thread that would provide a lot less value off it, which
may hint that the way we use that prefix should be
thought carefully.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">* Now that you’re aware of the
possible prior art, I believe you are required by law to
notify the USPTO so they determine what to do with the
reference. Sorry for the hassle.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">* I guess we need to continue
that discussion on an IETF ML rather than here, unless
people in the list ask for more. I’ll read with interest
the details of your proposal. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">The bottom line for NANOG is
that the dev guys are willing to help, whether by
evolving IPv6 or proposing IPv4 ideas like the ones
below. But we need push / support from your side to pass
the PM bar.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Keep safe;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Pascal<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b>
Abraham Y. Chen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:aychen@avinta.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><aychen@avinta.com></a>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
mercredi 23 mars 2022 16:59<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:pthubert@cisco.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><pthubert@cisco.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b>
Michael Thomas <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><mike@mtcc.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Dear Pascal:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">0) So glad to see your
recount of the history and the analysis!</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">1) We have recently
formulated a proposal called EzIP (Phonetic for Easy
IPv4) that is very much along the line of what you
just described below, but with a few twists. I
browsed through US patent 7,356,031, but failed to
spot the key word "240. It appears to me that it was
more a general concept than practice. Did you submit
a draft on your work to IETF? Perhaps due to these,
our (including patent examiner's) prior art search
never came across your work. Although, your patent
was granted in the same year as the Normative
Reference [2] of our IETF draft. Please have a quick
read of the below whitepaper. It provides you an
overview of EzIP as well as references to US Pat.
No.</span></font><font size="5"><span
style="font-size:17.5pt"> 11,159,425, the current
IETF</span></font><font size="4"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> draft and a feasibility
demonstration setup. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> <a
href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf</a></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">2) Here is a few quick
comparisons between our two teams' work and the
outline of EzIP benefits:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> A. Your "Realm" is
very much equivalent to our RAN (Regional Area
Network). However, instead of utilizing 240.0.0/8,
we propose to use the full 240/4 each to maximize
its effectiveness. Each RAN can serve up to 39M
population as large as Tokyo Metro, even before
utilizing the three private netblocks.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> B. Your "Elevator
Shaft" making use of part of the 240/4 pool is
equivalent to our single IPv4 public address to
tether a RAN from the Internet core. Ours is a
"micro" building block approach that provides more
flexibility. For example, up to 75% of the smaller
countries around the world need only one IPv4 each
to achieve the "Elevator Shaft" configuration.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> C. Your "Inter-Realm
Router" is simply the current Internet core routers
in the EzIP scheme.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> D. Instead of
proposing any modification to the IP packet header,
EzIP can deploy within the capability of the RFC791.
That is, when inter-RAN traffic is needed, the
Option Word mechanism is activated to carry the
240/4 addresses within the RAN, leaving the basic
source and destination address fields to carry the
public IPv4 addresses of the RANs at either end.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> E. EzIP
implementation is very straightforward. We have
identified at least one case that only requires "<b><i><span
style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic">disabling</span></i></b>
the program code that has been <b><i><span
style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic">disabling</span></i></b>
the use of the 240/4 netblock". With your software
expertise, you likely know other configurations.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> F. EzIP essentially
proposes to expand the address pool currently used
by CG-NAT without any hardware change. In addition,
the simplification in administrating the 240/4
addresses deterministically can mitigate the root
cause to the cyber insecurity, thus reducing the
OpEx.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> G. Treating 240/4 as
the fourth netblock in RFC1918 allows the RAN to
operate pretty much independent of the Internet
core. On the other hand, being rejected by current
routers enables RANs to be deployed worldwide by
themselves without interference in either direction.
This forms an <b><i><span
style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic">overlay
</span></i></b>network providing Internet-like
services while having individualized flexibility per
RAN.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> H. As more and more
RANs are deployed, there will be increasing number
of IPv4 public addresses becoming "spares". Each can
support one RAN to serve other purposes, such as
true test beds for experimenting new protocols.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> I. There probably
are a few more parallelisms that we can identify, as
we discuss more.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">I look forward to your
thoughts and critiques.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Regards,</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Abe (2022-03-23 11:59 EDT)</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">On 2022-03-23 05:01, Pascal
Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I see the same thing from the other side, being a S/W developer for switching and routing boxes since the early 90's. The PM barrier is a high wall indeed. And yet some techs succeed to pass it. What I'm arguing is that we can pass that wall if we work together with the same objective. <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I've been monitoring this list for a while, very insightful, very happy with what I learn in the process. But here I feel compelled to react. I read that IPv6 did not succeed in 25 years. But unless I miss something, complaining did not succeed either, did it?<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">My frustration is that indeed (as a dev guy) we have been trying hard to serve users our best. We proposed a number of things in the IPv4 evolution direction that I see being asked on this list. For larger IPv4 space and smooth migration, I'm personally fond of the IP-in-IP variation that filed in 20+ years ago as US patent 7,356,031. Basically we reserve a /8, say, since it is so popular at this time, 240.0.0./8, and make it the "elevator shaft" between IPv4 realms. Say the current IPv4 Internet is realm 1, that Internet would have IP address 240.0.0.1/8 in the shaft, and would continue operating as is, without a change in hosts and routers for traffic staying inside the current Internet. Now say China builds realm 2; that Internet would have IP address 240.0.0.2/8 in the shaft. A host in the Internet that wants to talk to a host in China would require an update to parse new DNS double-A (realm, address) records to encapsulate the packet IP-in-IP, outer src= 240.0.0.1 outer dest=240.0.0.2. The router that serves the shaft at level 1 attracts 240.0.0.0/8 within realm 1 and routes up the elevator for more specific (host) routes within that prefix. The router that serves the shaft at level 2 attracts 240.0.0.2/32 inside the shaft; upon the said packet it would swap the inner and outer destination and the packet would reach the Chinese address with classical routing within realm 2. Routers serving the shaft need an update, but then, only those do. Obviously the host in China can only reply if its stack is updated to understand the format. But all the other hosts and routers in China can be classical IPv4 as we know them long as their traffic stays in China. To migrate to IPv6 what you can do is map the elevator shaft prefix in, say, 400::/3 (sadly cannot use F00/3 that would map 240 neatly but is already assigned). The current internet would own 400:1::/32, China would own 400:2::/32, etc... You encode the double-A of the host in the prefix, reserve a well known suffix for IPv4 mapped double-A, and you have an IPv6 address that can be mapped both ways statelessly. When migrating to v6, each IPv4 node that owns a public IPv4 address in one realm gets a full IPv6 /64 for free.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">This kind of ideas have existed for long but apparently did not meet their public. <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">So we tried evolving IPv6 instead. And we did. I've witnessed deep evolution in networking technology with, e.g., IoT and SRv6. I've seen both being despised on this list and I'm not asking for more fuel on that fire. I just want to use these techs as a proof that evolution is indeed possible, that it happens in the context of IPv6, and that done in your direction it could make some folks happier than the current state of affairs. On the side, since I see the name, please consider that Cisco ships both techs above, so it is indeed capable of risk taking, the PM wall can indeed be passed, as long as there's enough pressure from both side.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">For those interested, I'd be happy to chat on how IPv6 ND has evolved (on paper) but is stuck behind the PM wall as well.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Keep safe;<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Pascal<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From: NANOG <a href="mailto:nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org" moz-do-not-send="true"><nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org></a> On Behalf Of<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Michael Thomas<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 22:37<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">To: <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nanog@nanog.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Subject: Re: V6 still not supported<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">john,<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">“make a decision”<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">technical pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">the industry press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">internet due to<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">ipv4 exhaustion. i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING,<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think. the ietf did<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">not. and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">clean up the mess.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">So are you saying that an ipng that came out in, say, 2000 which was<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">according to you was vastly superior having taken the time to get it<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If their silicon forwarding<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">couldn't handle it, they weren't interested unless customers were<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">clamoring for it. I can't see how that negative feedback loop could have<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">ever been prevented other than other ipng being done in, oh say, 1993<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">when it was all still software forwarding.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre>
<pre><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Mike<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:9.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0cm;text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4791in;height:.302in"
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part1.qsJfYnzS.j8Hio00F@avinta.com"
alt="Image removed by sender."
class="" width="46" height="29"
border="0"></span></a></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:9.0pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><font
size="2" face="Arial" color="#41424e"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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" moz-do-not-send="true"> <font
color="#4453ea"><span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></font></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>