Implementing EzIP, as Forrest mentioned 3 days ago, has far more challenges than implementing IPv6. It will also cause far more incompatibilities when it comes to routing traffic between a network which has implemented it and one that hasn't. It also sounds like another version of NAT, non-routable addresses behind a box which allows other networks to access it via a gateway. The implementation of IPv6 can be done within weeks for smaller organisations and networks and in less than a year for larger organisations, and the best part is that virtually every hardware vendor already supports it. The majority of our problems can be solved by using existing protocols, in my view we don't need another. If anything it only detracts from what we should be working towards. Further, over the last three days you've changed the subject line of the thread at least 12 times. Can you please stop changing it because every time you do, it starts a new thread and makes it rather difficult to keep track of the discussion. I also don't believe I'm the first one to raise this either. https://i.imgur.com/7WIzwEP.png Regards, Christopher Hawker On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 23:35, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Tom:
1) " ... Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP ... ":
FYI - Please see the below copy of a partial eMail thread. Bold, red colored and Italicized letters are to focus on the topic.
***********
InternetPolicy@eList.ISOC.org eMail thread
On 2021-10-18 16:34, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Vint:
Yes, this is one perspective for visualizing the EzIP proposal.
Thanks,
Abe (2021-10-18 16:33 EDT)
Re: [Internet Policy] 202110180800.AYC Re: Platform self-regulation
On 2021-10-18 10:39, *vinton cerf* wrote:
sounds like *eZIP* is basically an *overlay* network.
*v*
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:33 AM Abraham Y. Chen via InternetPolicy < internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> wrote:
Hi, Scott:
0) Thanks for your research.
1) Both SCION (based on my best understanding) and our work named EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) are technical solutions for improving the Internet from its foundation level (the architecture). There are many implications with such schemes including social and legal if one looks into them.
2) As I responded to Gene's questions (See my eMail with subject line tag: "202110171756.AYC"), the SCION approach implements certain restrictions ......
************
2) Prior to the above, we were quite unsure about what our team was doing. So, I purposely avoided having any contact with Vint. We had been describing the EzIP's RANs (Regional Area Networks) as "kites floating in the air over an geographic area anchored by an IPv4 address based cord". Although visually clear, it was too wordy. By using one concise word, *overlay*, Vint eloquently classified the EzIP network in terminology sense. It opened our eyes about what were the implications of EzIP and what could be the interactions with respect to the existing Internet, because EzIP was a non-interfering enhancement to an existing system which was a text book case of systems engineering.
Hope the above clears the air.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 07:34)
On 2024-01-12 19:24, Tom Beecher wrote:
I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I come out to see Mr. Chen : - Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6 - Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:46 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <#m_-4880440387061228082_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>