Hi, Christopher:
1) " Hang on... So EzIP
is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space? Wait, I'm lost... ":
Correct. This is one way to visualize the EzIP
deployment. This configuration is so far the most concise manner
to describe the the EzIP building block, RAN (Regional Area
Network). The nice thing about this approach is that everything
exists and is already working daily in each CG-NAT cluster. All
needed to expand its capability is a larger netblock. Since
240/4 is fundamentally not an outlier in the overall IPv4
address pool, except being classified as "Reserved" for a long
time, enabling it to work in a CG-NAT should not be any big
challenge.
2) " ... There is
no such thing as "semi-private" space in the world of CGNAT, ...
":
Correct. However,
not distinguishing 100.64/10 netblock from the common public and
private parts of the IPv4 space made it vague as which function
does it provide. That is, in terms of re-usability for each
isolated geographical area, it is like another RFC1918 private
netblock. On the other hand, CG-NAT is clearly used in
geographically public areas. So, 100.64/10 should be classified
as "public". In addition, 100.64/10 is listed according to "IANA
IPv4 Address Space Registry" as part of the 100/8 netblock under
ARIN, but now used by everyone worldwide. To avoid similar
ambiguity that leads to confusions, we decided to call 240/4 as
"semi-public" to more explicitly convey the concept. (Actually,
we initially called 240/4 "semi-private" thinking that it could
be the fourth RFC1918 netblock, until we realized that the
RFC6589 environment was a much better fit.)
3) " Your "solution"
to residential gateways not supporting the use of 240/4 space
being upgraded to OpenWrt won't work, because not all CPE
supports OpenWrt. ":
OpenWrt is just an
open source RG code that can replace that in commercial RGs that
have been supporting CPEs. Like the EzIP concept, the OpenWrt
upgrade of RG-NAT is an enhancement to the existing RG
functionality. Thus, OpenWrt enabled RGs can operate with the
combination of public (including RFC6589) with 240/4 netblocks
on the upstream (WAN) side, and private (RFC1918) with 240/4
netblocks on the downstream (LAN) side. So, there is no
compatibility change that a CPE (on-premises IoT) can sense.
This critical characteristics was the result of an OpenWrt core
code upgrade in 2019 contributed by Dave Taht of "IPv4 Unicast
Extensions Project". Before that, EzIP was just a theoretically
feasible scheme.
4) In addition,
OpenWrt at least works with one network router by D-Link (see
URL below). This means that, with both WAN and LAN sides of a
router supporting 240/4, a beginner's reference RAN can be built
and experimented with it:
5) " Instead of
attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT, IPv6 is definitely
the easier solution to implement as the vast majority of vendors
already support v6. ":
Since the general
consensus is that for moving ahead, we will rely on Dual-Stack
to bridge IPv6 and IPv4 worlds enabling them to coexist for the
foreseeable future, it would more expedient for the community as
a whole, if we could focus on technical discussions for each
camp respectively, while minimizing invitation messages from the
other side. I hope you do agree.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-15 11:27)
On 2024-01-15 00:09,
Christopher Hawker wrote:
Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as
CGNAT space? Wait, I'm lost...
With CGNAT, there is either public IP space in front of the
gateway, or private space behind it. There is no such thing as
"semi-private" space in the world of CGNAT, as devices with
public IPs can't directly access devices behind a CGNAT
gateway with a 100.64/10 address. It's either a public
address, or a private address (not to be confused with an
RFC1918 private address).
Let's talk hypothetically for a minute and assume that
240/4 is used as CGNAT space. Your "solution" to residential
gateways not supporting the use of 240/4 space being
upgraded to OpenWRT won't work, because not all CPE supports
OpenWRT.
Instead of attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT,
IPv6 is definitely the easier solution to implement as the
vast majority of vendors already support v6.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
Hi, Mike:
1) "... only private use. ...":
The EzIP deployment plan is to use
240/4 netblock as "Semi-Public" addresses for the
existing CG-NAT facility. With many RG-NATs (Routing /
Residential Gateway -NATs) already capable of being
240/4 clients thru the upgrade to OpenWrt, no IoT on any
private premises will sense any change.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-14 23:04)
On 2024-01-12 15:16, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm
not talking about global, public use, only private use.
