****** Resend to go through
NANOG ******
On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham
Y. Chen wrote:
Dear
Owen:
0)
You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday.
Some are interesting and crucial views that I would
like to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the
earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the
correct leads.
1)
" ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents
want to believe and even if it were reclassified
effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much
life for IPv4. ... ": Perhaps you have not
bothered to scan through a two page whitepaper (URL
below, again) that I submitted a week or so ago? It
promises simple implementation and significant
increase of assignable IPv4 addresses, even
extendable to the similar size of IPv6 if we could
forgo our mentality about the IP addresses as
"Personal Properties", by switching to treat them as
"Natural Resources".
It still looks like NAT to me.
NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to
peer nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider
model.
Your proposal perpetuates that problem.
2)
" ... so that content providers can start turning
off v4 where it’s costing them money to support it.
.... " & "... Content providers turning off v4
face competition from content providers that don’t.
... ": These two statements appeared to come
from two separate posting of yours. They seemed to
be contradicting each other. Did I misread somehow?
No, it is not contradictory at all…
Content providers that have deployed IPv6 are eager to turn
off IPv4 as soon as it won’t lose them customers. They are
worried about losing customers because competition exists that
might not turn off IPv4 at the same time they do. Thus, there is
a need for customers to be IPv6 deployed before content
providers can start turning off IPv4. Thus, the persistence of
IPv4 in clients, especially enterprises, is costing content
providers money.
Now
from the last post below:
3)
" ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents
want to believe and even if it were reclassified
effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much
life for IPv4.... ": Please see information
provided by Pt. 1) above.
OK, so you want to extend RFC-1918 instead… Arguably even more
worthless than reclassifying it as GUA. While it’s true that
some very large deployments are short of RFC-1918 space, the
reality is that the real shortage is in the GUA realm.
4)
" ... I think it should be reclassified from never
going to be used into some part of the internet
might actually do something with it. Its important
that happens now, better late then never ... Please
feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or
OSPF area numbers. :p ... ": I am in full
agreement with you. Our proposal is the solution in
Pt. 1) above.
That’s not me. That’s Joe Maimon IIRC. My part was “Pleas feel
free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers.
:p.
It was mostly a snarky comment since neither BGP Router IDs
nor OSPF Area numbers are actually IP addresses.
5)
" ... if we continue to waste effort that is
better spent deploying IPv6 on bandaids and hacks to
make v4 last just a little longer, .... ": This
is not a productive opinion. Please do not forget
that the Internet heavily promotes personal freedom.
One can not force others to do something that they
do not believe in. Stopping them from doing one
thing does not automatically make them to do what
you like. A project must have its own merits that
attract contribution. The failure of the IPv6
actually started from when a decision was made to
the effect of "not to emphasize backward
compatibility with IPv4" which broke one of the
golden rules in system engineering. Not recognizing
such and focusing to find a way for remedying it,
but continuing to force others to migrate to IPv6
camp with various tactics does not foster progress.
We can agree to disagree about that… I think trying to continue
to support IPv4 is not a productive opinion.
6)
" ... The problem is that we’re not talking about
parallel experiments. ... ": EzIP is a parallel
experiment to the current Internet (not only IPv4,
but also IPv6) operations, because its overlay
architecture on the latter demarcates everything
happening on it from the Internet. As long as
packets exchanged between the two conform to the
established Internet protocols, an EzIP deployment
(called RAN - Regional Area Network) will appear as
innocent as an ordinary private network.
Again, I disagree… You left out the relevant part of my quote
where I stated that resources spent developing this mechanism
are better used deploying IPv6.
Owen