Hi, Jordi: 1)    " ... Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will affect others? ... ":    The nice thing about the EzIP scheme is that it proposes a collection of overlay network modules (the RAN - Regional Area Network), each is tethered from the existing Internet core via one IPv4 public address as the umbilical cord which isolates the two, except exchanging IP packets conforming to the established Internet protocol. So, EzIP essentially proposes to create a parallel cyberspace practically independent of the current one. There should be no concern about interfering each other. 2)    " ... many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: ...   ":     Perhaps I am from the old engineer school, I was inspired by a street legend that,     After Thomas Edison tried over one thousand types of material to replace the lead-acid battery, people with conventional wisdom declared that he had failed one thousand times. Edison responded by saying that "I now know there are at least one thousand types of material that can not replace the lead-acid battery.     The moral of the story is that after one century, we are now beginning to use Lithium based battery which by itself went through tremendous amount of R&D efforts. So, I highly respect those who focus on alternative possibilities, instead of those regurgitating on unsuccessful discussions of proposals, let alone those avoid studying the root cause of the failed experiments. Regards, Abe (2022-03-13 21:45) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 13 Message: 23 Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:21:01 +0100 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ<jordi.palet@consulintel.es> To: North American Network Operators' Group<nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:<BE38196A-ABE8-4445-BF65-CB3E02B8C343@consulintel.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will affect others? Because, at least in my case, I'm investing my efforts in what it seems to be the best in the long-term for the global community, not my personal preferences? ?El 12/3/22 9:10, "William Herrin"<bill@herrin.us> escribi?: On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is the only viable long-term solution. > > The effort to ?reinvent? any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it is much best invested in continue the IPv6 deployment which is already going on in this region and the rest of the world. > > It would not make sense, to throw away all the efforts that have been already done with IPv6 and we should avoid confusing people. > > I just think that even this thread is a waste of time (and will not further participate on it), time that can be employed in continue deploying IPv6. Why are so many otherwise smart engineers so vulnerable to false dilemma style fallacies? There's no "either/or" here. It's not a zero sum game. If you don't see value in doing more with IPv4 then why don't you get out of the way of folks who do? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ ********************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus