<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 26, 2022, at 06:35 , Abraham Y. Chen <<a href="mailto:aychen@avinta.com" class="">aychen@avinta.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">Hi, Owen:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">0) Re: Ur. Pt. 2):
This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it aside for now,
until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme to you.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">00) Re: Ur. Pt.
4): Okay, I was concerned about how to decipher this
cryptic exchange. So let's put it aside as well.<br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1):
Yes, you are correct that the EzIP network architecture looks
like that of CG-NAT. In fact, it is exactly the same. This is
actually the beauty of the EzIP solution. That is, without
touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (<b class=""><i class="">disabling</i></b>
the program code that has been <b class=""><i class="">disabling</i></b> the use
of the 240/4 netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN!
As to universal peer-to-peer, where is any of such today? On the
other hand, upon fully implemented the EzIP proposal (the second
phase: making use of the Option Word in RFC791), an IoT in one
RAN can directly reach a second IoT in another RAN world-wide.
So that the original promise of the Internet will be finally
fulfilled and for the long haul.<br class=""></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span style="font-size: 16px;" class="">The fact that we gave up universal peer to peer in the name of survival until we could deploy a protocol with enough addresses doesn’t mean that giving it up is a good long term solution.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 16px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div><font size="3" class="">To me, the goal is to get away from address scarcity as quickly as possible. IPv6 does that. EzIP doesn’t. I have no desire to support prolonging the misery that has existed since NAT became popular. I view it as a disability to the internet and IPv6 eliminates that disability. EzIP arguably makes it even worse. So, what you call beauty is, IMHO, damage.</font></div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">2) Re: Ur. Pt. 3):
Similarly, you probably only recognized the part that EzIP
proposes to classify the 240/4 netblock as the fourth private
address in RFC1918, but overlooked that such capacity will
enable a RAN to cover a geographic area as big as Tokyo Metro,
or 75% of smaller countries around the world, even before
utilizing the conventional three private netblocks. This puts
240/4 into a different league from the other three conventional
private netblocks, although all four have basically the same
technical characteristics. Now, visualizing each RAN is tethered
from the existing Internet core by one umbilical cord (one IPv4
address), it appears like a private network. So that each RAN
can provide Internet services by utilizing existing
technologies, while avoiding those undesired. Combining these
RANs around the world, an <b class=""><i class="">overlay</i></b> layer of
routers (SPRs) can operate in parallel to the current Internet.
Under such a configuration, the latter no long is involved with
daily local activities, but only carries inter-RAN traffic, very
much like the division between national and international
telephone networks. This creates quite a different operation
landscape. Please have a look at slide # 11 of the below
whitepaper for a rough breakdown of the available addresses
under the EzIP scheme. Furthermore,
if used diligently, (treating IP address as "<b class=""><i class="">natural
resources</i></b>" instead of "<b class=""><i class="">personal properties</i></b>"),
the assignable "EzIP addresses" can last quite awhile.<br class=""></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span style="font-size: 15px;" class="">I didn’t overlook it, I routed around it as damage in the truest of internet traditions. Geographical-based addressing hierarchies have been proposed before. They have a long history of failing in the face of actual topology and actual operational concerns. This doesn’t look significantly different to me. It’s yet another entirely bad idea which serves only to prolong the IPv4 misery while diverting resources from useful work to enable the deprecation of IPv4 as the lingua franca of the internet backbone.</span></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf">https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf</a>
<br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5)
& 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic
baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep
in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "<b class=""><i class="">personal
freedom</i></b>". Assuming that by stopping others from
working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally
contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors
by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the
competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right
after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward
compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in
the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades,
still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various
tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but
also to IPv6.</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class="">I’m not stopping anyone from anything. I’m stating that I believe resources would be better spent deploying IPv6 than being wasted on this project. Anyone who disagrees with me is, of course, free to waste their resources however they see fit.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class="">In terms of backwards compatibility, there’s absolutely no way to do it. It’s mathematically impossible to squeeze a 128 bit address into a 32 bit field. Every system needed to be upgraded to handle 128 bit addresses at the OS, application, and all other layers of software. Routers needed upgrades to hardware for fast switching as well. That was inevitable in any increase in the address space. Claiming that IPv6 failed because of this “decision” is pretending that there was a decision to be made which presumes an alternative existed. The only way this could be achieved would be to abandon the end-to-end principle and permanently consign the internet to a fate involving widespread NAT. I’m very glad that decision was deemed unacceptable and I still believe it to be the right one.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class="">Owen</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 17px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">Regards,</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class=""><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4" class="">Abe (2022-03-26 09:35
EDT) <br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-25 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:53375421-2B10-49A1-885C-E7021C3E40DA@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 25, 2022, at 18:47 , Abraham Y. Chen <<a href="mailto:aychen@avinta.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" moz-do-not-send="true">aychen@avinta.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">****** Resend to go through
NANOG ******<br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham
Y. Chen wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4">Dear
Owen:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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 class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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 class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf</a><br class="">
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
It still looks like NAT to me.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to
peer nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider
model.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Your proposal perpetuates that problem.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"> </font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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 class="">
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
No, it is not contradictory at all…</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Content providers that have deployed IPv6 are eager to turn
off IPv4 as soon as it won’t lose them customers. They are
worried about losing customers because competition exists that
might not turn off IPv4 at the same time they do. Thus, there is
a need for customers to be IPv6 deployed before content
providers can start turning off IPv4. Thus, the persistence of
IPv4 in clients, especially enterprises, is costing content
providers money.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"> </font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4">Now
from the last post below:</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
OK, so you want to extend RFC-1918 instead… Arguably even more
worthless than reclassifying it as GUA. While it’s true that
some very large deployments are short of RFC-1918 space, the
reality is that the real shortage is in the GUA realm.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
That’s not me. That’s Joe Maimon IIRC. My part was “Pleas feel
free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers.
:p.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It was mostly a snarky comment since neither BGP Router IDs
nor OSPF Area numbers are actually IP addresses.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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 class="">
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
We can agree to disagree about that… I think trying to continue
to support IPv4 is not a productive opinion.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:876ec3d8-83d6-7efd-ea05-127f167d8f55@avinta.com" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="4"> </font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" 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 class="">
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Again, I disagree… You left out the relevant part of my quote
where I stated that resources spent developing this mechanism
are better used deploying IPv6.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Owen</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" class=""><br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;" class=""><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" class=""><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;" class=""></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">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;" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><a href="x-msg://39/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1" class=""> </a></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>