Hi, Tom: 1)    " .... better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels. ": Thanks for the recommendation. I would appreciate very much if you could guide us to the specific contact. Before we attempt to do so, however, it would be prudent to report the history of our team's experience:     A.    The first IETF Draft on EzIP Project started from 2016-12 as instructed by the ISE (Independent Submission Editor). Although, at that time Working Group SunSet4 had been in session for awhile. But, we were not aware of, nor being informed about such.     B.    In Summer of 2018, we discovered that SunSet4 had Concluded. We contacted the person in charge of keeping an eye on possible future IPv4 activities, but did not receive any instruction to revise our course.     C.    Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.     D.    I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.     Hope you can help us to close the loose ends. 2)    In the meantime, we realized that the simplest implementation of the EzIP proposal is to replace the 100.64/10 netblock used by CG-NAT with the 240/4 netblock. Next, taking advantage of the much larger address pool to begin practicing static address assignment related disciplines, a "packetized PSTN" is realized. From such a base, the EzIP powered CG-NAT behaving as an overlay network in parallel to the existing Internet for providing the same services, many of the drawbacks in the latter are mitigated! So, we decided to discuss the EzIP proposal directly with the NANOG colleagues, because the EzIP deployment can actually be rather stealthy. I look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Abe (2022-03-15 16:26) On 2022-03-14 14:48, Tom Beecher wrote:

If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

Hi, Fred:

0)    Thank you for a set of references.

1)    We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced (based on my reading) any more essence to the topic.

2)    "...  I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply....   ":    With your knowledge of the past, you are uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting. This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a series of surprising results. In particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while reviewing our work. Thanks,

Regards,

Abe (2022-03-14 14:39)

------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15 Message: 17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> <mailto:fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen@avinta.com> <mailto:aychen@avinta.com>, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> <mailto:bill@herrin.us> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID: <79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC@gmail.com> <mailto:79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> <mailto:aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

...

2) On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.

https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/

I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related Internet Drafts

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-recl... https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddres...

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-fuller-240space

The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the definition of the address space would allow RIRs to sell more IPv4 address space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were handed out), there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's errand. If you want to have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing architecture with more addresses.

I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply.

------------------------------

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>

<#m_-3820859315811704609_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mar 15, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread you can see there is no interest in this.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/iZnR1Dkomu4D8AfHTI2xR_npJ8Y/

I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions. —gregbo

I was referring to the relative number of responses to the most recent Schoen IPv4 maintenance draft at the link you gave (quoted by me), as compared to the responses here on the NANOG list. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I would argue that Schoen and the co-authors of that draft have spent time researching the problem and past discussions. For example, see the discussion on the internet-history list about the history of 0/8 <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-February/004862.html>. —gregbo

On Mar 20, 2022, at 11:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:

I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions.

There are quite a few responses. All expressed zero interest.

This is a pretty common pattern. Someone comes up with an idea, spends zero time researching the history of the problem or previous discussions,and submits it to the IETF. People point out that it's been discussed before,and they aren't interested,but the submitter stamps their feet because nobody is LISTENING to them.

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:14 PM Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:

...

On Mar 15, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org <mailto:marka@isc.org>> wrote:

Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread you can see there is no interest in this.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/iZnR1Dkomu4D8AfHTI2xR_npJ8Y/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/iZnR1Dkomu4D8AfHTI2xR_npJ8Y/>

I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions.

—gregbo

John Levine wrote:

It appears that Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> said:

...

C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.

D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.

For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not worth pursuing.

R's, John

*ahem* Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, by relegating all group think dissenters as white noise nobodies? And if they have succeeded in doing such on their own forums, its more telling about their own process problems than anything else. I sincerely hope I am mistaken in your characterization of the many fine individuals who have repeatedly gone on record in support of maintaining IPv4 responsibly until such time as it is properly obsoleted. While I can understand being considered a nobody, other more notable definitely not nobodies have even on this tired topics' nth thread made themselves heard and some fairly clearly. History will continue to show that the IETF pursued the path of pain for the internet. Joe