Abraham,
It has existed for many years, already supported on many devices, does not
require NAT, address space is plentiful, does not require additional proposals,
and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.
Ryan
________________________________
From: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
To: Ryan Hamel <r...@rkhtech.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Michael Butler
<i...@protected-networks.net>; Chen, Abraham Y. <ayc...@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi, Ryan:
1) " ... Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6. ":
What is your selling point?
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-12 06:44)
2024-01-11 12:39, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Abraham,
You're arguing semantics instead of the actual point. Residential customers
want Internet access, not intranet access. Again, VRFs are plentiful and so are
CG-NAT firewall appliances or servers to run those VMs.
Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6.
Ryan
________________________________
From: NANOG
<nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech....@nanog.org><mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech....@nanog.org>
on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com><mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
To: Michael Butler
<i...@protected-networks.net><mailto:i...@protected-networks.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
<nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi, Michael:
1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ":
EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area Network) as
"Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to the conventional
Internet definition. This is actually the same as how 100.64/10 is used within
CG-NAT.
2) However, this might be where the confusion comes from. With the
geographical area coverage so much bigger, an RAN is effectively a public
network. To mesh the two for consistency, we defined everything related to
240/4 as "Semi-Public" to distinguish this new layer of networking facility
from the current public / private separation. That is, the CG-NAT routers will
become SPRs (Semi-Public Routers) in EzIP's RAN, once the 240/4 is deployed.
Hope this helps,
Abe (2024-01-11 12:21)
On 2024-01-10 10:45, Michael Butler via NANOG wrote:
On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
Karim-
Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly be able
to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, you cannot use it
as publicly routable space. There have been many proposals over the years to
reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened, and is unlikely to at any point in
the foreseeable future.
While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private setting,
using them might also be .. a challenge.
There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain assumptions
about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with a header that
defines ..
#define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
Michael
[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
