My suggestion is ignore anyone who says it would be too difficult to get people to adopt a change or take too long. Someone always says that, a reasonable riposte is "what would be a reasonable number of people / years?" Surely they must have some numbers in mind, no?
We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very limited success so perhaps that's a pretty time to shoot for, for example. Anything less than 30 years would be an improvement. I suppose some might leap on that as evidence of the above cautions but it's really not. It's just being argumentative. It feels like a reasonable argument pattern but it's not because it ignores why that previous attempt mostly failed and tries to equate them (we failed for 30 years so therefore you will fail for 30 years???) That said, what's needed is a working demo preferably within both a simulation environment and live because the devil is always in the details and the only way to vet that is by testing working code. A mere proposal is of some value, one can glance at it and try to spot any fatal flaws for example. But it's only a tiny step along the path. However, that it might take a while to become adopted is, to me, like saying forget trying to mitigate climate change, it'll take decades and require hundreds of govts, thousands of industries, and billions of people to change their behavior which is all true but hardly an argument as to why not to try. Aside: A pretty good rule of thumb with replacement technologies is that something has to be 10x better than what it replaces to get wide adoption. Ok maybe not 10, that's a figure of speech, but a lot, and certainly not introduce impediments to its own adoption and use. On November 21, 2022 at 12:00 beec...@beecher.cc (Tom Beecher) wrote: > As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The > Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing > software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock." > > > Some friendly feedback. The phrase "all that needs to be done" , is > exceptionally reductive, and in the case of internet standards, also always > going to end up being wrong. > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:19 AM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > > Dear Mark: > > 0) Thanks for the clarification. I understand. A short message through > the cyberspace, especially between parties who have never met can be > easily skewed. I am glad that I asked you, instead of taking it > negatively without raising my hand. > > 1) "...I'd, rather, expend those resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c. ... > ": Since EzIP is still being further refined, it may not be clear in our > documentation about how much work is required to get the IPv4 out of the > current depletion mode. As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The > Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing > software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock." > In fact, we have found examples that this means commenting out one line > code that searches for then discards packets with 240/4 addressing. It > seems to me that there is no easier task than this. > > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf > > Regards, > > Abe (2022-11-21 11:18 EST) > > > > On 2022-11-20 23:56, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > > >> Dear Mark: > >> > >> 0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion. > >> > >> 1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of > >> an in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do > >> not rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved. > >> Especially, its first step of disabling one line of existing > >> networking program code empowers any party to begin deploying EzIP > >> stealthily for mitigating the IPv4 address pool depletion issues. > >> Note that EzIP is a generic solution applicable to everyone, not > >> limited to Africa. > >> > >> 2) Of course, constructive criticism is always appreciated. However, > >> unspecific comments that confuse and distract the readers only > >> provide dis-service to those disadvantaged population who are > >> enduring the handicaps of being the late-comers to the Internet. > > > > My comment was not directed at you. Sorry. > > > > I have nothing against the EzIP proposal. It just does not add any > > real value in solving the IPv4 depletion problem for the amount of > > effort required to implement it, in my view. I'd, rather, expend those > > resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c. > > > > Mark. > > > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
