Hi, Pascal:
0) As the good old saying stated: "A picture is worth one thousand
words." Let's take advantage of such a teaching.
1) Focusing at just the text before and after Figure 1 of your below
draft, I found:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-01
A. " In the analogy of a building, */the ground floor would be
the Interne/*t, and each additional floor would be */another IPv4
realm/*. ... analog to */the full IPv4/**/addressing /*that is
available in each realm. ": Unless there is certain hidden refinement
that I could not decipher, the combination of the three phrases
highlighted above by me seems to refer to the entire IPv4 netblock,
addresses and practices, etc., all inclusive. (By the way, the phrase
"ground floor" appears to contradict the "(current IPv4 Internet)" label
in the figure that is on the top floor (realm 1) of a building. Unless,
you are presenting an underground building? But, we can regard this as a
minor typo.)
B. " ... A single /24 IPv4 prefix assigned allows for*/> 250
times the capacity of the Internet as we know it /*... ": Are you
visualizing that your YADA / YATT draft proposes creating >250 layers of
cyberspace, each with the same capacity of the current Internet? If so,
it will be fantastic. Then, how can you physically deploying that many
layers, each fully covering the entire globe, yet without stepping on
one another's toes (the identical IP addresses packed >250 deep)? That
is, I failed to imagine what kind of mechanism that you have for
isolating the layers, such as populating people accordingly.
Please clarify.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-02 12:22 EDT)
On 2022-04-02 04:56, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
That does not need to be long, Abe.
There’s no minimal interval between version. I already published 01…
And I do not have a special address format beyond what’s in the draft
already. It’s only IPv4 and IPv6. No new address format. Just assigned
ranges, and well known IIDs.
To your point: the addresses in each realm are the full IPv4 that we
know and they cannot talk directly between realms. They are indeed
isolated. Nodes in different floors can only communicate through the
shaft. Think of a human and a stairwell. The physical space reserved
for the stair well at each level is the same. What people do with the
rest of the space is their own. All addresses and AS numbers are reusable.
I do not see you image of a sphere. My image of a sphere is IPv6,
that contains all the IPv4 “planes”, the shaft, and all the air in
between.
You design uses the internet as shaft if you like. In that we differ.
YADA leaves the internet as is, and allows to build other internets
that cannot leak in one another. But participating nodes can
communicate through the shaft.
If end nodes do not participate, then a stateful Nat is still needed.
For most homes that means an upgrade of the stateful NAT in the
gateway so the public side has a YATT format, and DNS snooping to
provide a A record inside. Same for PLATs. For most servers, that
means an update in the load balancer, and a NAT if there was none, to
allow to speak to other realms. Whatever happened in the current IPv4
can still do. Some levels can be created IPv6 only from the start,
providing YATT addresses to those who need to communicate with the
other levels.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 23:45
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>; Vasilenko Eduard
<vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can
wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that
I asked for an IP packet header example of your proposal is to
visualize what do you mean by the model of "realms and shafts in a
multi-level building". The presentation in the draft sounds okay,
because the floors are physically isolated from one another. And, even
the building is isolated from other buildings. This is pretty much how
PBX numbering plan worked.
2) When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool,
however, you are essential talking about covering the entire surface
of the earth. Then, there is no isolated buildings with isolated
floors to deploy your model anymore. There is only one spherical layer
of physical earth surface for you to use as a realm, which is the
current IPv4 deployment. How could you still have multiple full IPv4
address sets deployed, yet not seeing their identical twins, triplets,
etc.? Are you proposing multiple spherical layers of "realms", one on
top of the other?
2) When I cited the DotConnectAfrica graphic logo as a visual model
for the EzIP deployment over current IPv4, I was pretty specific that
each RAN was tethered from the current Internet core via one IPv4
address. We were very careful about isolating the netblocks in terms
of which one does what. In other words, even though the collection of
RANs form a parallel cyberspace to the Internet, you may look at each
RAN as an isolated balloon for others. So that each RAN can use up the
entire 240/4 netblock.
Please clarify your configuration.
Thanks,
Abe (2022-04-01 17:44)
On 2022-04-01 10:55, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
On 2022-04-01 10:00, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Makes sense, Abe, for the next version.
Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT
device can only talk to another IPv6 device, where that other
device may use a YATT address or any other IPv6 address.
But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby
steps for those who want to.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
<mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>
<mailto:vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Pascal Thubert
(pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> <mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>;
Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com> <mailto:strein...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
What I would appreciate is an IP packet header
design/definition layout, word-by-word, ideally in bit-map
style, of an explicit presentation of all IP addresses
involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the second
realm. This will provide a clearer picture of how the real
world implementation may look like.
Thanks,
Abe (2022-04-01 09:48)
On 2022-04-01 08:49, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
As I understand: “IPv4 Realms” between “Shaft” should be
capable to have a plain IPv4 header (or else why all of
these).
Then Gateway in the Shaft should change headers (from IPv4
to IPv6).
Who should implement this gateway and why? He should be
formally appointed to such an exercise, right?
Map this 2 level hierarchy to the real world – you may
fail with this.
Ed/
*From:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
[mailto:pthub...@cisco.com <mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>
<mailto:vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Justin Streiner
<strein...@gmail.com> <mailto:strein...@gmail.com>;
Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard:
Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that
there cannot be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue that some things will
have to be planned between stake holders, and that it will
not be easy.
But you know what the French say about “impossible”.
Or to paraphrase Sir Arthur, now that we have eliminated
all the impossible transition scenarios, whatever remains…
There will be YADA prefixes just like there are root DNS.
To be managed by different players as you point out. And
all routable within the same shaft.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>;
Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen
<ayc...@avinta.com>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi Pascal,
In general, your idea to create a hierarchy is good.
In practice, it would fail because you have created a
virtual hierarchy that does not map to any administrative
border. Who should implement gateways for the “Shaft”? Why?
If you would appoint Carrier as the Shaft responsible then
it is not enough bits for Shaft.
If you would appoint Governments as the Shaft responsible
then would be a so big scandal that you would regret the
proposal.
Hence, I do not see proper mapping for the hierarchy to
make YADA successful.
Eduard
*From:* NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org
<mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
*Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM
*To:* Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y.
Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
For the sake of it, Justin, I just published
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.
The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range
in an IPv4-only world. For some people that might be
enough and I’m totally fine with that.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco....@nanog.org>
*On Behalf Of *Justin Streiner
*Sent:* dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
*To:* Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Abe:
To your first point about denying that anyone is being
stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being
able to communicate via IPv4. I have seen no evidence of
that.
I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to
IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more
knowledgeable on that to speak up if they're so inclined.
Thank you
jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen
<ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4
... ": After all these discussions, are you still
denying this basic issue? For example, there has not
been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4
enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you
know the way, please make it public. I am sure that
many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
Image removed by sender.
<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>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus