<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Hi, Brandon:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">1) "So each RAN has
no possibility of redundant connections? .. ": There is
difference between "via one IPv4 public address" and "wide
bandwidth or multiple channels". The former is called "numbering
plan". The latter is part of "traffic engineering". The former
defines the configuration / architecture of the latter, but not
restricts its capability. One simple analogy is that a
corporation headquarters publishes only one (representative)
telephone number. But, everyone knows that there are multiple
physical channels to carry the simultaneous conversations. So,
we discuss about network architecture here. Then, the
implementation engineering will take care of the details.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">2) " It also looks
like an opportunity for telcos/governments to partition their
part of the internet and impose whatever censorship they wish.
... ": The EzIP scheme provides an alternative to the
current "Internet way" operation model and can operate in
parallel while none-interfering to each other. There is no
intention for EzIP to replace the current Internet. The hope is
to let the two models operate in real time for the consumer to
make the informed choice, as in a free market.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">3) " You previously
described this as like connecting CG-NATs together via a VPN.
... ": I do not believe that I have ever mentioned VPN in
any of our literature, nor correspondence. I would appreciate
learning where did you find such a connection.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">4) " As it's a CG-NAT
variant why are you delaying yourself by requiring new address
space that will take a long time to become available? ":
As it has become evident recently through various posting, the
240/4 netblock has been used "behind-the-scene" by many projects
without the explicit permission by ICANN. Since packets with
240/4 addressing get dropped by existing routers, it actually
makes the deployment of the new project easier. EzIP can be
deployed in the same fashion as well. However, with the Unicast
Extension Project became known, we would like to go along with
their efforts to make the EzIP process more "Kosher".</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">5) "... Why not use
the already allocated space for CG-NAT? Sure it's only a /10 but
that's an already (probably too) large RAN.... ": The
CG-NAT netblock of /10 is only one fourth of the largest private
netblock 10/8. So, it is not big enough for the next level of
challenge. Making use of the 240/4 netblock allows EzIP to serve
a large enough geographical area, so that a true "Regional" Area
Network characteristic may be achieved. A RAN can serve a
population of upto 39M, even before employing the three
conventional private netblocks. So, it is possible to experiment
the wish of the "Country" networks idea proposed by ITU about
one decade ago. Whether it is better or worse than the current
Internet, EzIP provides a separate test bed for such, instead of
verbal debates forever.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">6) " It also seems
unfeasibly optimistic that if the work was done globally to make
240/4 useable that they'd want to dedicate it to the as yet
undeployed EzIP. ... ": As have been hinted a couple times
already on this forum, the ideal EzIP initial deployment beds
are the existing CG-NAT modules. All we need to do is to enable
the routers in a CG-NAT module to route 240/4 netblock and
retire the 100.64/10 netblock. Since every customer premises can
have a static 240/4 address, the DHCP process in the CG-NAT can
fade out. The current communication between this CG-NAT with the
Internet core remains unchanged. This process can be done
gradually, one CG-NAT module at a time. No one outside of each
of such tranistin will even notice something has happened. There
is no need to do this globally in one shot, at all.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">7) "Is 240/4 special
to EzIP such that alternative numbers may not be used? "
No, nothing is special here. The only reason that 240/4 is
attractive is because it is big, continuous as well as being
"Reserved for Future use" for so long. It is like a never-never
land, fresh enough to do something really grand and for the long
term. <br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">8) " That sounds an
entirely undesirable goal for the internet.
": As I state above, EzIP offers a configuration for
experimenting a (or more) parallel Internet(s). they will not
interfere the current Internet, nor one another. So, what is
your concern or reservation?</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 (2022-03-27 16:35)</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"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-27 10:49, Brandon
Butterworth wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20220327144937.GA19718@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one IPv4
public address.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections? Nobody
of scale would accept such a limitation. It also looks like an
opportunity for telcos/governments to partition their part
of the internet and impose whatever censorship they wish.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As such, the collection of RANs forms an overlay network
layer wrapping around the current Internet core. Consequently, only the
SPRs in the RAN need to be able to transport 240/4 addressed packets.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You previously described this as like connecting CG-NATs together via a
VPN. I don't see why we'd want to add maintaining a global VPN to
already difficult peering relationships. It could be used to exlude non
EzIP club members.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This is why we talk about enabling new (but based on existing design)
routers to use 240/4 netblock for serving as SPRs, but not perturbing
any routers in the current Internet.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As it's a CG-NAT variant why are you delaying yourself by requiring
new address space that will take a long time to become available? Why
not use the already allocated space for CG-NAT? Sure it's only a /10
but that's an already (probably too) large RAN.
It also seems unfeasibly optimistic that if the work was done globally
to make 240/4 useable that they'd want to dedicate it to the as yet
undeployed EzIP. You might stand more chance if you gained some
critical mass using the existing available 100.64/10 & rfc1918 space,
and then those that find they need more in one RAN will make the case
for 240/4 when it becomes necessary for them. Is 240/4 special to
EzIP such that alternative numbers may not be used?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I would like to share one intriguing graphics (see URL below) that
is almost perfect for depicting the EzIP deployment configuration.
Consider the blue sphere as the earth or the current Internet core and
the golden colored land as the RANs. By connecting each continent,
country or all the way down to a Region to the earth via one IPv4
address, we have the EzIP configuration. With this architecture, each
RAN looks like a private network.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That sounds an entirely undesirable goal for the internet.
brandon
</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>