Dear Tom:
Have not heard from you since the below MSG. Could you please let me
know if you have seen it, so that we can carry on by avoiding the
repeated open-loop situation with this thread?
Regards,
Abe (2022-12-01 07:44 EST)
On 2022-11-22 23:23, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Dear Tom: **** Please disregard an earlier partial transmission of
> this MSG, caused by operator error. ***
>
> 1) One look at the NANOG archive that you retrieved tells me that we
> are the victims of the idiosyncrasies of the eMail system. Unlike
> snail mails that are slow but reliable (There was a story that USPS
> found a forty years old letter stuck in one of the mail collection
> boxes on Boston sidewalk and then delivered it.), eMails are fast
> (Once my eMail monitoring account started to receive a long message
> that I was sending out, even before it was fully sent.) but
> unpredictable from time to time. Unfortunately, most of us are
> conditioned with its daily behavior and do not suspect the electronic
> system hiccups (As Andrew Grove once said, "It is the software, not
> the hardware."). To deal with this kind of issues in none-real-time
> communications, I practice a discipline, started from VM and FAX, that
> I will do my best to respond within 24 hours. I encourage my
> colleagues to start reminding me (either repeat the MSG or using
> alternative channels, such as SkyPe - My handle is "Abraham.Y.Chen"),
> if they do not hear from me after 48 hours on topics that they expect
> my response. This convention prevented much of the disruptions.
> Looking at your comments, I definitely would have responded back then
> if I saw them. One possibility is that I was in the midst of being
> overwhelmed by NANOG posting protocols, such as the digest mode,
> uni-code, personal writing styles, etc. and miseed your MSG. Anyway,
> allow me to try carrying on.
>
> 2) "...Your proposal appears to rely on a specific value in the IP
> option header to create your overlay....": Not really, as soon as the
> 100.64/10 netblock is replaced by the 240/4, each CG-NAT module can
> serve a very large area (such as Tokyo Metro and such) that becomes
> the RAN in EzIP terminology. Since each RAN is tethered from the
> existing Internet core by an umbilical cord operating on one IPv4
> public address, this is like a kite floating in the sky which is the
> basic building block for the overlaying EzIP Sub-Internet when they
> expand wide enough to begin covering significant areas of the world.
> Note that throughout this entire process, the Option Word mechanism in
> the IP header does not need be used at all. (It turns out that
> utilizing the CG-NAT configuration as the EzIP deployment vehicle, the
> only time that the Option Word may be used is when subscribers in two
> separate RANs wishing to have end-to-end communication, such as direct
> private eMail exchanges.)
>
> 3) " ... to drop any packet with an IP option set that you don't
> explicitly want because a significant number of routers kick every
> packet with options to CPU, ... ": Yes, this was what we were reminded
> of when we started our study. However, this appears to be another
> Internet myth. Dr. Chimiak of the EnIP project (see EzIP Draft's
> Refernce 13) told me that his team had successfully sent packets with
> Option Words. Again, even if the existing routers do knock out packs
> with Option words, the overlay architecture of the RANs allows the
> search for those do allow this operation. Since the use of the Option
> Word turns out to be an option to superceed IPv4's capabilities, we
> should treat it as a consideration for future premium services.
>
> 4) " ...Any device that still treated 240/4 differently would need to
> be updated to treat it like anything else. .. ": Yes, this applies to
> regions that desire to enjoy the EzIP characteristics. Since the root
> of each RAN (or sub-RAN) still appears to be one of the current CG-NAT
> modules, there is no change can be detected by other CG-NAT modules.
> This avoids interoperability issues during the incremental deployment.
>
> 5) " ...Any existing filters that dropped packets with *any* IP
> option set would have to be modified to permit the ones you define for
> EzIP....": Since EzIP is not going to activate Option Words initially
> for enhancing the CG-NAT, this should not be a concern. In the future,
> inter-RAN communication by subscribers would use Option words. But, by
> that time, finite number of backbone / gateway routers among RANs
> capable of preserving Option Words would have been identified. This
> approach takes advantage of the hierarchical network configuration
> that CG-NAT has already been practicing implicitly.
>
> 6) "... ( At one point in the past, one big router vendor only allowed
> you to configure an ip-options filter based on the IANA defined
> values, not others. ) ...": Well, you are talking about the overly
> intertwined relationship between one big roouter vendor and the IANA
> which is sponsored by the former. So, this is not a technical but a
> "busniess" issue. We have talked with "white box" vendors. One assured
> us that EzIP can be quickly activated in thier programs if customers
> do ask for it.
>
> 7) "... This is a LOT of work and time for an overlay. ...": You are
> probably visualizing a complete overlay network right from the
> beginning. The EzIP approach is gradual and incremental as outlined in
> the above descriptions. An EzIP deployment can be as small as a
> residential network because it was how we initially figured out this
> solution. It is based on parties who desire to participate, case by
> case. Those who don't, do not need to do anything, nor could notice
> any difference. All of these turn out to be the result of the
> fundametal Internet characteristics that can transmit every bit of
> compatible signals. Then, a sub-group of routers can link up with
> compatible nodes to form a new network on their own, which can coexist
> with, yet independent of the others (such as IPv4, IPv6, ARP, other as
> reported by AMS-IX).
>
> I look forward to your thoughts,
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-11-22 23:22 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022-11-21 18:46, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> 1) As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So
>> that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.
>>
>>
>> I will start by citing one of my own responses to you :
>>
>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2022-March/218291.html
>>
>> I do not leave a loose end to any technical
>> discussion with substance.
>>
>>
>> With the utmost amount of respect, you do.
>>
>> Many people on this list have provided specific , technical issues
>> with your proposal. Others have commented on non-technical, but
>> practical considerations. In all cases, you have simply handwaved
>> them away or not commented on them further.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Tom:
>>
>> 1) As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So
>> that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.
>>
>> 2) Hint: I signed up to NANOG.org only early this year. So,
>> whatever you
>> have in mind might be from somewhere else. In addition, even
>> though I do
>> not have good memory, I do not leave a loose end to any technical
>> discussion with substance. The revisions of the EzIP documentation
>> have
>> always been improving the presentation style for easing the reader's
>> efforts, not about modifying our basic scheme. So, you need to be
>> clear
>> about the topics that you are referring to. Thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Abe (2022-11-21 17:16 EST)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022-11-21 13:23, Tom Beecher wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...": Please give a
>> couple
>> > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
>> colleagues
>> > on this forum can understand.
>> >
>> >
>> > Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to
>> > the proposal in the past on this list.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen
>> <aychen@avinta.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Tom:
>> >
>> > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...": Please give a
>> couple
>> > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
>> > colleagues
>> > on this forum can understand.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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-space
>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is
>> not an
>> > > 'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed
>> by the
>> > > authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no
>> > interest
>> > > from anyone involved in internet standards, and for
>> > various technical
>> > > reasons , likely never will.
>> > >
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com