<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="4">Hi, Christopher:</font></p>
<p><font size="4">1) " ... It would simply increase the
workload of their support and provisioning teams. Right now, in
cases where ISPs use DHCP, they can simply ship a router to an
end-user, the user plugs it in, turns it on, and away they go.
": <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> I do understand the current practice that you
are describing. However, there is nothing wrong by instructing a
subscriber to attempt accessing the ISP's sign-up website with
his browser when first turning on the router, so that a process
of checking the credentials of the subscriber can go through,
then a static WAN (240/4) address is assigned to the router.
From there on, everything should operate normally as far as the
subscriber is concrned. This process is not special. For
example, when a traveler checks into a hotel these days, he
would go through pretty much the same steps with minimal
identification (Certain hotel network even knew which room I was
in by popping my name on the screen, perhaps because the WiFi
access point was fed by wired Ethernet! Only password provided
by the front desk was needed.) Then, everything works just like
at home.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">2) " ... If an end-user has a router that
does not support OpenWrt, it will require the end-user to
replace their router with one that does in order to connect to
an EzIP-enabled network. ": <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> Correct. But, RAN is an overlay network that
provides a parallel route to the same services as the current
CG-NAT. So, an end-user has the option to use it. Nothing hurts,
if he decides to ignore the RAN.<br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">3) " A carrier would
not have a need for more than ~4.1m devices on a single regional
access network ... ":<br>
</font> </div>
<p><font size="4"> This is a system level planning consideration.
That is, even if some carriers do not need EzIP, it does not
mean that the capability should not be presented to the general
audience. Let's hold this off for the moment.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Regards,</font></p>
<p><font size="4"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Abe (2024-01-20 11:55)</font><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2024-01-18 23:19, Christopher Hawker
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEFxHS8AfhgfHzEtcOi1Y+sqbedkopHkd3YpZq_L6k4PcWh91Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">According to the diagram on page 8 of the
presentation on your website at <a
href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf</a>,
it simply identifies 240/4 as CGNAT space. Routing between
regional access networks typically doesn't take place when
using such space on an ISP network, and most ISPs (that I know
of) will offer public addressing when it is required. Further,
if you think the need for DHCP will be eliminated through the
use of your solution, I hate to say it, but ISPs will not
statically configure WAN addressing on CPE for residential
services. It would simply increase the workload of their
support and provisioning teams. Right now, in cases where ISPs
use DHCP, they can simply ship a router to an end-user, the
user plugs it in, turns it on, and away they go. Connectivity
to the internet.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>If an end-user has a router that does not support OpenWRT,
it will require the end-user to replace their router with one
that does in order to connect to an EzIP-enabled network. This
is not reasonably practical. This would also require router
vendors to support connectivity to a proprietary "semi-public
router".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, for the sake of completeness, this solution is a
waste of time and resources. A carrier would not have a need
for more than ~4.1m devices on a single regional access
network and some may run more than one in a single region, so
as not to put all of their proverbial eggs into the same
basket.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Christopher Hawker</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 14:49,
Abraham Y. Chen <<a href="mailto:aychen@avinta.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">aychen@avinta.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div><font size="4" face="monospace">Hi, Christopher:</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="monospace"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="monospace">1) " If "EzIP" is
about using 240/4 as CGNAT space, ... ": </font></div>
<p><font size="4" face="monospace"> This correlation is
just the starting point for EzIP deployment, so that it
would not be regarded as a base-less crazy dream. Once a
240/4 enabled RAN is established as a new network
overlaying on the CG-NAT infrastructure, the benefits of
making use of the 240/4 resources can begin to be
considered. For example, with sufficient addresses,
static address administration can be practiced within a
RAN which will remove the need for DHCP service. From
this, related consequences may be discussed. </font></p>
<font size="4" face="monospace"><br>
2) " I don't think you quite grasp the concept that
OpenWRT is not compatible with devices that do not support
it. .... it would not be appropriate to expect every
device vendor to support it. ... ":<br>
</font>
<p><font size="4" face="monospace"> Perhaps we have some
offset about the terminology of "who supports whom?" My
understanding of the OpenWrt project is that it is an
open-source program code that supports a long list (but
not all) of primarily commercial RGs
(Residential/Routing Gateways) and WiFi routers that
serve / support CPE devices (on-premises IoTs). Its
basic purpose is to let private network owners to
replace the firmware code in the RGs with the OpenWrt
equivalent so that they will have full control of their
RGs and then modify them if desired. Thus, the basic
release of each OpenWrt code maintains most of the
original functionalities in the OEM device. So, neither
the original RG nor any IoT manufacturers need be
involved with the OpenWrt, let alone supporting it. My
reference to its V19.07.3 was the version that expanded
its usable address pool to include 240/4. That was all.</font></p>
<p><font size="4" face="monospace"> For sure, OpenWrt
does not run on all RGs in the field. But, this does not
restrict an overlay network like RAN from starting to
network only those premises with RGs that run on OpenWrt
(plus those RGs compatible with 240/4 from the
factories). Since the existing CG-NAT is not disturbed
and daily Internet services are going normally, RAN
growth can take its time.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="4" face="monospace"> 3) " You've provided a
link to a D-Link managed switch, not a router. Just
because it can support L2 routing, doesn't make it a
router. ":<br>
</font>
<p><font size="4" face="monospace"> Correct, this is just
a basic example for networking the RGs to experiment the
RAN configuration. It is not intended to be a
full-fledged router which will have other considerations
that are way beyond what EzIP should be involved with.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="4" face="monospace"><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Abe (2024-01-18 22:48)</font><br>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</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" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/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" 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>