Hi, Owen:
0) I am glad that you
do not object to the notion that two premises on an RAN can
establish end-to-end connectivity via L2 routing.
1) For a better visualization, the below
derivation will make use of figures in the EzIP Draft:
A. As I stated,
premises on RAN1 (served by SPR1 - 69.41.190.110) and premises on RAN4 (served by
SPR4 - 69.41.190.148) in Figure 1 can communicate with
one another via L2 routing based on 240/4, respectively. Since
the 240/4 pool is large enough to serve the entire population of
most countries, each needs only one RAN to provide the basic
end-to-end connectivity for daily life of all citizens. Thus,
Intra-RAN direct connectivity is provided.
B. Similarly,
SPR1 (69.41.190.110)
and SPR4 (69.41.190.148) can communicate with each other
by L2 routing via the Internet core routers (utilizing plain IPv4 headers as well).
C. For T1z
(192.168.1.9) on Premises 1 (240.0.0.0) to communicate with IoT
T4z (246.1.6.40), we will need to extend the plain IPv4 header
used in Step B. above by utilizing RFC791 to carry the 240/4
addresses as Option words. Figure 16 shows an EzIP header
configured for such a situation. Note that Word 9 represents the
port numbers of IoTs on RGs. Since T4z is an IoT directly
connect to SPR4, only the value (9N) for T1z is meaningful.
D. An IP packet
with header in the form of Figure 16 can be delivered, if
a. Routers
between SPR1 and SPR4 will treat it as a plain IPv4 packet
(i.e., ignoring the Option words), and,
b. SPRs
recognize the Option words and make use of then to route the
packets across the RANs.
2) For Step 1) D. a.,
it is said that many network routers drop packets having Option
word due to certain security ("IP Source Route" attacks?)
concerns. Although, there have been reports that such packets
did get through certain routes anyway. This scheme is similar as
those dropping 240/4 addressed packets. So, disabling such
mechanism along the desired path may be feasible.
3) For Step 1) D. b.,
enhanced SPR programs will be needed to recognize the Option
words for utilizing them to route when the inter-RAN direct
connectivity mode is activated.
So, direct
world-wide end-to-end connectivity is possible based on the EzIP
scheme.
4) However, economics
comes into play when considering to deploy Step 1) D. at this
juncture. Since the Internet has evolved into the predominantly
CDN model whose architecture is a master-slave hierarchy,
subscribers desiring for direct inter-RAN connectivity is likely
a much smaller subset among those desiring for Intra-RAN
connectivity. This is like comparing international mail versus
the domestic counter part. It may be difficult to justify
efforts for Steps 2) & 3), before the demand becomes
universal upon the general public realizing the possible
functions. Instead, one of the old PSTN practices may be
mimicked here as the interim solution. That is, the telephony
"Foreign Exchange" setup used to enable a subscriber at distance
to appear on local telephone services. It was achieved by
permanently "nailed-up" a telephone extension wiring (started
from a pair of actual physical copper wires in the earlier days
to a dedicated voice channel in a digital multiplex environment)
to a business that is remote from a community it serves. I am
sure that the equivalent capability already exists in the
Internet and is being used somewhere. This can be utilized to
set up the extension link between any two RANs having the need.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-24 12:28
EST)
On 2024-01-20 13:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
No. No matter how you cobble it, IPv4 doesn’t have
enough addresses to restore proper end to end connectivity.
Owen
Hi, Owen:
1) " ... IPv4
used to work before NAT made everything horrible. ":
Utilizing
240/4, RAN is a flat space which should support this kind
of rudimentary end-to-end connectivity within each RAN.
(called L2 routing, correct?)
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-20 10:35)
On 2024-01-19 04:02, Owen DeLong
wrote:
Any host connected to a reasonably well peered ISP (e.g. NOT
Cogent) with IPv6 should be able to communicate with any
other such host so long as the administrative policies on
both sides permit it.
I have no difficulty directly reaching a variety of
IPv6 hosts from the /48 in my home.
However, it’s not like dial-up modem operations in the
PSTN in that IP is an inherently connectionless packet
switched service while modems were an inherently circuit
switched connection oriented service.
However, it does work like IPv4 used to work before NAT
made everything horrible.
Owen
Hi, Forrest:
1)
I have a question:
If
I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another
similar subscriber to communicate (voice and
data) directly between two homes in private
like the dial-up modem operations in the PSTN?
If so, is it available anywhere right now?
Regards,
Abe
(2024-01-15 15:20)