************* 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".
https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-25 12:24)
On 2022-03-24 21:25, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:49, Joe Maimon<jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon<jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can
survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
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.
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. Whether its GUA or not or a mix of whatever,
whether it buys months or years will depend greatly on how its actually used if
it is ever used.
Please feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p
You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be wrong.
IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, but the same
ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort asked from the unwilling
is to support cutting the red tape frustrating the willing. A hearty round of
knock yourself out from the right folk in the right place and time and we dont
have to debate this particular point ever again.
Certainly, if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6
on bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, we will continue to
fail and further delay IPv6 reaching a level of deployment that allows us to
start turning down IPv4 and beginning to recognize the cost savings that come
from moving forward.
How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That alone is
enough reason for me.
The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. We’re talking
about an optional activity which will inherently pull resources away from a
necessary activity, thus delaying the necessary activity and becoming somewhat
of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence I oppose this wasteful experiment in favor
of doing what we all know eventually needs to be done.
Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that keep
moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely to increase
deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own limited fashion much as I
do 240/4.
Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.
That Ipv6 address allocation schemes and proposals tended to enlarge over time,
using up more bits heading from right to left.
Meh… I haven’t seen too much of that. I’ve been guilty of a certain amount of
it, to be sure, but we’re only recently seeing the two largest RIRs start
working through their second /12s even though it’s been years since I pushed
for (and achieved) nibble-boundary round-ups as the norm in the ARIN region.
I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an
end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro
allocations to their customers.
Owen
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
