On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:53 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Dear Owen:
1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives. ...": Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look at the below IETF Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-s...
Hi Abraham, I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm having some trouble understanding the deployment model for EzIP. Perhaps you could help clear it up for me? A non-EzIP web server is only going to see the global destination IP address and TCP port number as the unique session identifiers for communication, so the vast amount of additional IP space you postulate existing behind the SPR functionally collapses down into the 64K TCP port range available today in traditional port-based NAT setups. As long as the top 50 websites aren't EzIP-aware, there appears to be no benefit for an ISP to deploy EzIP, because it doesn't actually gain them anything beyond what existing CG-NAT devices already provide as far as their web-browsing customer base is concerned. Most of their communication will still be port-based-NAT, with all the headaches and restrictions inherent in that. And for the top 50 websites, there's a lot of expense and absolutely no upside involved in deploying EzIP. They don't care about how much IP space you have behind your NAT device, and whether it's uniquely identifiable within your local realm; it's not information they can access for tracking users, as they don't know what your internal mapping is, so they'll continue to rely on browser cookies and the like for tracking actual user sessions, regardless of the IP addressing format being used. So, you've got a model where there's functionally almost no benefit to the end user until the major websites start deploying EzIP-aware infrastructure, and there's pretty much no incentive for major websites to spend money upgrading their infrastructure to support EzIP, because it provides no additional benefit for them. This is pretty much exactly the same conundrum that IPv6 faced (and still faces today). I don't see why EzIP is any better than IPv6 or CG-NAT in terms of solving the IPv4 address shortage problem, and it seems to involve more expense for web providers, because it requires them to deploy additional SPR mapping routers into their infrastructure in order to use it, with essentially no additional benefit. Is there a piece to the picture I'm not understanding correctly? Thanks! Matt