Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been discussed
but I'm hoping that this might make a difference.

Abraham,

Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of NAT
box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP internet.  That
NAT box will have to remain in place until such time as every single
publically addressed device on the public internet has been updated to
support EzIP.  In addition, protocols such as DNS, SIP, and others which
pass around addresses will need to be updated to be able to pass the full
EzIP addressing around so endpoints can properly insert the EzIP header,
and so on.

The point I'm trying to make is that, at this point, deploying EzIP as an
end to end address exhaustion solution has MORE challenges that simply
deploying IPv6 would.  This is because, just like EzIP, deploying IPv6
requires a NAT box of some sort to be put in place until the last IPv4
device is turned off.   But unlike EzIP, almost every new device coming out
supports IPv6 out of the box.   All of the technical standards work has
already been done.   Thus, the only meaningful barrier to IPv6 at this
point is convincing people to use it, not convincing people to use it PLUS
convincing the tech companies to support it,  and doing protocol changes
like you would with EzIP.

I applaud your attempt at a unique solution but I really feel that ship has
sailed, at least for an EzIP type of solution. Maybe something like this
would have better received years ago, but at this point IPv6 is a much more
logical path forward.

I do wonder,  however,  if some of your concepts might be able to be
applied to the IPv6 transition.  I have some ideas here,  but most, if not
all, of them are only partially cooked but some have similar approaches as
EzIP but with an actual IPv6 packet inside.



On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:11 PM Abraham Y. Chen  wrote:

> Hi, Enno:
>
> 0)Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.
>
> 1)However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your paper cited
> does not make any specific recommendation about how to utilize the 240/4
> netblock uniformly across the entire Internet. Our proposal, EzIP outlines
> a scheme that makes a clear use of the 240/4 by the general public,
> basically discouraging disparate private usages. We were very much lost
> with what has been going on with the 240/4 netblock, because there was no
> information about who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab report clarified
> the fact that it has been fragmented due to unannounced activities by
> multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under the cover of
> "Reserved for Future Use".
>
> 2)" As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if
> not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks something' ":
>
> I am afraid that  you read into my diplomatic expression too far.
>
> A.The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the CG-NAT by
> providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume that Karim is
> looking for. Such process (disabling the program code that has been
> disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any running code to prove it. To
> be blunt, anyone who claims that this will be a real task only shows that
> he does not know his own code.
>
> B.The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up
> end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver. This is
> because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business is a master-slave
> model which does not support it. However, this capability is like
> international postal or telephony services that are not daily needs for
> everyone. So, it should be treated as a premium service that can be built
> up with time base on demand.
>
> Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Karim:
>
> 1)?? If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking
> to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address
> _/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current
> facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of 240/4 netblock.
>
> As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not 
> controversial".
> Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. 
> Which is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:
> https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/
>
> cheers
>
> Enno
>
>
>
>
>
>  Please
>
> have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined
> disciplines, this is a practically unlimited resources. It has been
> known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it without
> announcement. So, you can 

RE: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

> It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it 
> without announcement.
This is an assurance that 240/4 would never be permitted for Public Internet. 
These “multi-national conglo” has enough influence on the IETF to not permit it.
Ed/
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 3:35 PM
To: KARIM MEKKAOUI 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. 
Subject: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Importance: High

Hi, Karim:

1)If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your business 
includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to buy IPv4 
blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address for free by 
disabling the program codes in your current facility that has been disabling 
the use of 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized 
according to the outlined disciplines, this is a practically unlimited 
resources. It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using 
it without announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed 
mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

2)Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow up with 
me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)



On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
Hi Nanog Community

Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?

Thank you

KARIM




[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]

Virus-free.www.avast.com

Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Ryan Hamel]

Abraham,

There is no need to run one giant cluster. Many small clusters with VRFs and 
CG-NAT devices to bridge the gap from the VRF to the Internet and keep the 
blast radius small, are enough. A CG-NAT ISP should not need to work so hard to 
provide a unique enough CG-NAT IP address, as long as they can match a MAC 
address of the customer router + MAC address of the carrier equipment, to the 
DHCP and flow logs.

As along as the carrier implements IPv6, it will cut down on the active NAT 
sessions and port forwards the equipment needs to process.

Ryan Hamel


From: NANOG  on behalf of Abraham Y. 
Chen 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 8:09 PM
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT 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, Tom:

1)Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of convoluted 
topics behind it, however, the net result is basically discouraging the 
listener from investigating the possibilities. Since this is rather 
philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless we carry on a lengthy 
debate. Instead, I would like to address below only one aspect that you brought 
up.

2)"... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable* space 
without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs.  ":

Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a current 
CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used. Looking from 
another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the subscriber set 64 fold 
with still the original one publicly routable IPv4 address.

3)This 64 fold scaling factor is critical because it allows one CG-NAT 
cluster to serve a geographical area that becomes sufficient to cover a 
significant political territory. For example, if we assign two 240/4 addresses 
to each subscriber, one for stationary applications, one for mobile devices. 
And, each 240/4 address can be expanded by RFC1918 netblocks (total about 17.6M 
each). Each CG-NAT can now serve a country with population up to 128M. It turns 
out that population of over 90+ % of countries are fewer than this. So, each of 
them needs only one publicly routable IPv4 address. Then, the demand for IPv4 
address is drastically reduced.

4)In brief, the 240/4 is to substitute that of 100.64/10. So that the need 
for the publicly routable IPv4 addresses is significantly reduced.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 23:08 EST)


On 2024-01-10 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.

Mr. Chen-

I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your position, 
even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty pool to toss this 
idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicaly routable* space 
without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs.

( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case who 
wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48 AM KARIM MEKKAOUI 
mailto:amekka...@mektel.ca>> wrote:

Interesting and thank you for sharing.



KARIM



From: Abraham Y. Chen mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>>
Sent: January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
To: KARIM MEKKAOUI mailto:amekka...@mektel.ca>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. 
mailto:ayc...@alum.mit.edu>>
Subject: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Importance: High



Hi, Karim:



1)If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your business 
includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to buy IPv4 
blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address for free by 
disabling the program codes in your current facility that has been disabling 
the use of 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized 
according to the outlined disciplines, this is a practically unlimited 
resources. It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using 
it without announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed 
mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.



https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf



2)Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow up with 
me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.





Regards,





Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)







On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:

Hi Nanog Community



Any 

RE: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Tony Wicks]

 

 

 

2)"... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable* space 
without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs.  ":

 

Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a current 
CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used. Looking from 
another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the subscriber set 64 fold 
with still the original one publicly routable IPv4 address.

 

The OP asked for “Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is 
the price”. I would expect they want actual public IPv4 address blocks and not 
internal CGNAT space. While the idea of using 240/4 instead of 100.64/10 would 
certainly have some merit I don’t believe its in any way related to what this 
OP asked for.

 

regards

 

202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Hi, Tom:

1)    Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of 
convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically 
discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities. Since 
this is rather philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless 
we carry on a lengthy debate. Instead, I would like to address below 
only one aspect that you brought up.


2)    "... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable* 
space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their 
needs.  ":


    Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a 
current CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used. 
Looking from another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the 
subscriber set 64 fold with still the original one publicly routable 
IPv4 address.


3)    This 64 fold scaling factor is critical because it allows one 
CG-NAT cluster to serve a geographical area that becomes sufficient to 
cover a significant political territory. For example, if we assign two 
240/4 addresses to each subscriber, one for stationary applications, one 
for mobile devices. And, each 240/4 address can be expanded by RFC1918 
netblocks (total about 17.6M each). Each CG-NAT can now serve a country 
with population up to 128M. It turns out that population of over 90+ % 
of countries are fewer than this. So, each of them needs only one 
publicly routable IPv4 address. Then, the demand for IPv4 address is 
drastically reduced.


4)    In brief, the 240/4 is to substitute that of 100.64/10. So that 
the need for the publicly routable IPv4 addresses is significantly reduced.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 23:08 EST)


On 2024-01-10 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.


Mr. Chen-

I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your 
position, even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty 
pool to toss this idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire 
*publicaly routable* space without being clear that this suggestion 
wouldn't meet their needs.


( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which 
case who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )


On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48 AM KARIM MEKKAOUI  
wrote:


Interesting and thank you for sharing.

KARIM

*From:*Abraham Y. Chen 
*Sent:* January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
*To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI 
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. 
*Subject:* 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
*Importance:* High

Hi, Karim:

1) If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are
asking to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved
IPv4 address */_for free_/* by */_disabling_/* the program codes
in your current facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of
240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper.
Utilized according to the outlined disciplines, this is a
practically unlimited resources. It has been known that
multi-national conglomerates have been using it without
announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the
proposed mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

2) Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please
follow up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their
interests.

Regards,

Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)

On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:

Hi Nanog Community

Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is
the price?

Thank you

KARIM






Virus-free.www.avast.com






--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Hi, Enno:

0)    Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.

1)    However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your paper 
cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to utilize the 
240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet. Our proposal, EzIP 
outlines a scheme that makes a clear use of the 240/4 by the general 
public, basically discouraging disparate private usages. We were very 
much lost with what has been going on with the 240/4 netblock, because 
there was no information about who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab 
report clarified the fact that it has been fragmented due to unannounced 
activities by multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under 
the cover of "Reserved for Future Use".


2)    " As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if 
not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks something' ":


    I am afraid that you read into my diplomatic expression too far.

    A.    The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the CG-NAT 
by providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume that Karim is 
looking for. Such process (disabling the program code that has been 
disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any running code to prove it. 
To be blunt, anyone who claims that this will be a real task only shows 
that he does not know his own code.


    B.    The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up 
end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver. This 
is because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business is a 
master-slave model which does not support it. However, this capability 
is like international postal or telephony services that are not daily 
needs for everyone. So, it should be treated as a premium service that 
can be built up with time base on demand.


    Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)





On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:

Hi, Karim:

1)?? If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking
to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address
_/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current
facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of 240/4 netblock.

As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not 
controversial".
Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. Which 
is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:

https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/

cheers

Enno





  Please

have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined
disciplines, this is a practically unlimited resources. It has been
known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it without
announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed
mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

2)?? Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow
up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)



On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:

Hi Nanog Community

Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?

Thank you

KARIM


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

RE: Microsoft contact

[Tony Wicks]

Not unusual for random O365 blocks to appear, I especially like they way the 
reject message trys to refer the user back to their ISP as if their ISP is in 
any way involved with the internal Microsoft blocklist. “<<< 550 5.7.1 
Unfortunately, messages from [x.x.x.x] weren't sent. Please contact your 
Internet service provider since part of their network is on our block list 
(S3150).”

 

 

If you log it here “https://olcsupport.office.com/“ , in a day or two they 
normally fix it, always after saying "I do not see anything offhand with the 
IP’s (x.x.x.x) that would be preventing your mail from reaching our customers", 
then you reply to them with “well there is a problem as you are bouncing the 
email as per the bounce message”. Then they fix it. Same routine every time.

 

 

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of David Bass
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 7:32 AM
To:  
Subject: Microsoft contact

 

Hi everyone, hope y’all had a great holidays. 

 

I’m looking for a Microsoft Office 365 contact who can help us…we’re struggling 
to get anywhere using the standard methods.  

 

We have a customer whose subnet is blacklisted, and is causing a lot of 
heartache.  We’ve proven to a couple of people at this point that Microsoft is 
blocking inbound traffic from this subnet, and so they can’t send/receive 
emails or access M365.  This is a new eyeball network, so needless to say that 
it’s painful. 

 

Appreciate the help!

 

David

Microsoft contact

[David Bass]

Hi everyone, hope y’all had a great holidays.

I’m looking for a Microsoft Office 365 contact who can help us…we’re
struggling to get anywhere using the standard methods.

We have a customer whose subnet is blacklisted, and is causing a lot of
heartache.  We’ve proven to a couple of people at this point that Microsoft
is blocking inbound traffic from this subnet, and so they can’t
send/receive emails or access M365.  This is a new eyeball network, so
needless to say that it’s painful.

Appreciate the help!

David

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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 ..
>

Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in
an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, because frankly a
lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo RFC1918 for years.
Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source projects to do the
same.

It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification.


On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler 
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) & 0xf000) == 0xf000)
>
> Michael
>
>

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Michael Butler via NANOG]

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) & 0xf000) == 0xf000)

Michael

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Nick Hilliard]

Tom Beecher wrote on 10/01/2024 15:12:
( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case 
who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )


I'm taking bids on 256.0.0.0/8, which is every bit as publicly routable 
as 240/4.


Nick

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Tom Beecher]

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.

Mr. Chen-

I understand your perspective surrounding 240/4, and respect your position,
even though I disagree. That being said, it's pretty dirty pool to toss
this idea to an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicaly routable*
space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs.

( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case
who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:48 AM KARIM MEKKAOUI  wrote:

> Interesting and thank you for sharing.
>
>
>
> KARIM
>
>
>
> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen 
> *Sent:* January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
> *To:* KARIM MEKKAOUI 
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. 
> *Subject:* 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Hi, Karim:
>
>
>
> 1)If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your
> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to
> buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address *for
> free* by *disabling* the program codes in your current facility that has
> been *disabling* the use of 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the
> below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined disciplines, this is a
> practically unlimited resources. It has been known that multi-national
> conglomerates have been using it without announcement. So, you can do so
> stealthily according to the proposed mechanism which establishes uniform
> practices, just as well.
>
>
>
> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>
>
>
> 2)Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow up
> with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
>
> Hi Nanog Community
>
>
>
> Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> KARIM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> 
>
>
>

RE: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[KARIM MEKKAOUI]

Interesting and thank you for sharing.

KARIM

From: Abraham Y. Chen 
Sent: January 10, 2024 7:35 AM
To: KARIM MEKKAOUI 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. 
Subject: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Importance: High

Hi, Karim:

1)If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your business 
includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to buy IPv4 
blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address for free by 
disabling the program codes in your current facility that has been disabling 
the use of 240/4 netblock. Please have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized 
according to the outlined disciplines, this is a practically unlimited 
resources. It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using 
it without announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed 
mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

2)Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow up with 
me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)



On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
Hi Nanog Community

Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?

Thank you

KARIM




[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
Virus-free.www.avast.com

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Enno Rey via NANOG]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi, Karim:
> 
> 1)?? If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your 
> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking 
> to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address 
> _/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current 
> facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of 240/4 netblock.

As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not 
controversial".
Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. Which 
is exactly why you may avoid this, see also:

https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/

cheers

Enno





 Please 
> have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined 
> disciplines, this is a practically unlimited resources. It has been 
> known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it without 
> announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed 
> mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.
> 
> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
> 
> 2)?? Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow 
> up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)
> 
> 
> 
> On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nanog Community
> >
> > Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > KARIM
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com

-- 
Enno Rey

Cell: +49 173 6745902
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
IPv6 Blog: https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com

202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Hi, Karim:

1)    If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your 
business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking 
to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address 
_/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current 
facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of 240/4 netblock. Please 
have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined 
disciplines, this is a practically unlimited resources. It has been 
known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it without 
announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed 
mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well.


https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

2)    Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow 
up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests.



Regards,


Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST)



On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote:


Hi Nanog Community

Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price?

Thank you

KARIM




--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com