Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the simple fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues to get worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and tragically does nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more disaster on top of the existing mess).  The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of internet traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow. You simply can’t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its life merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure before it is finally retired.  Owen On Jan 12, 2024, at 03:46, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:  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> on behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM To: Michael Butler <i...@protected-networks.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <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 Virus-free.www.avast.com