Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211211223.AYC

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 1)  As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So
> that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.
>

I will start by citing one of my own responses to you :

https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2022-March/218291.html

I do not leave a loose end to any  technical
> discussion with substance.
>

With the utmost amount of respect, you do.

Many people on this list have provided specific , technical issues with
your proposal. Others have commented on non-technical, but practical
considerations. In all cases, you have simply handwaved them away or not
commented on them further.



On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Abraham Y. Chen  wrote:

> Dear Tom:
>
> 1)  As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So
> that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.
>
> 2) Hint: I signed up to NANOG.org only early this year. So, whatever you
> have in mind might be from somewhere else. In addition, even though I do
> not have good memory, I do not leave a loose end to any  technical
> discussion with substance. The revisions of the EzIP documentation have
> always been improving the presentation style for easing the reader's
> efforts, not about modifying our basic scheme. So, you need to be clear
> about the topics that you are referring to. Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-11-21 17:16 EST)
>
>
>
> On 2022-11-21 13:23, Tom Beecher wrote:
> >
> > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
> > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
> colleagues
> > on this forum can understand.
> >
> >
> > Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to
> > the proposal in the past on this list.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Tom:
> >
> > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
> > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
> > colleagues
> > on this forum can understand.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
> > >
> > > 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of
> > alternatives. ...":
> > > Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a
> > look
> > > at the
> > > below IETF Draft:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
> > >
> > >
> > > For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is not an
> > > 'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the
> > > authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no
> > interest
> > > from anyone involved in internet standards, and for
> > various technical
> > > reasons , likely never will.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Abraham Y. Chen
> > 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Owen:
> > >
> > > 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of
> alternatives.
> > > ...":
> > > Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a
> > look
> > > at the
> > > below IETF Draft:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
> > >
> > > 2)  If this looks a bit too technical due to the nature of
> > such a
> > > document, there is a distilled version that provides a
> > bird-eye's
> > > view
> > > of the solution:
> > >
> > > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
> > >
> > > 3)  All of the above can start from making use of the 240/4
> > > netblock as
> > > a reusable (by region / country) unicast IP address
> > resources that
> > > could
> > > be accomplished by as simple as commenting out one line of the
> > > existing
> > > network router program code. I will be glad to go into the
> > > specifics if
> > > you can bring their attention to this almost mystic topic.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Abe (2022-11-19 22:50 EST)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2022-11-18 18:20, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Nov 18, 2022, at 03:44, Joe Maimon
> >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark Tinka wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  You could instead use a /31.
> > > >>> We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of
> > > CPE's that may or may not support this. Having unique
> > designs per
> > > customer does not scale well.
> > > >> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should
> > > make it 

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211211223.AYC

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Dear Tom:

1)  As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So 
that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully.


2) Hint: I signed up to NANOG.org only early this year. So, whatever you 
have in mind might be from somewhere else. In addition, even though I do 
not have good memory, I do not leave a loose end to any  technical 
discussion with substance. The revisions of the EzIP documentation have 
always been improving the presentation style for easing the reader's 
efforts, not about modifying our basic scheme. So, you need to be clear 
about the topics that you are referring to. Thanks.


Regards,


Abe (2022-11-21 17:16 EST)



On 2022-11-21 13:23, Tom Beecher wrote:


1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues
on this forum can understand.


Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to 
the proposal in the past on this list.




On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen  
wrote:


Dear Tom:

1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that
colleagues
on this forum can understand.

Thanks,


Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)




On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>     1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of
alternatives. ...":
>     Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a
look
>     at the
>     below IETF Draft:
>
>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
>
>
> For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is not an
> 'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the
> authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no
interest
> from anyone involved in internet standards, and for
various technical
> reasons , likely never will.
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Abraham Y. Chen

> wrote:
>
>     Dear Owen:
>
>     1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
>     ...":
>     Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a
look
>     at the
>     below IETF Draft:
>
>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
>
>     2)  If this looks a bit too technical due to the nature of
such a
>     document, there is a distilled version that provides a
bird-eye's
>     view
>     of the solution:
>
> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>
>     3)  All of the above can start from making use of the 240/4
>     netblock as
>     a reusable (by region / country) unicast IP address
resources that
>     could
>     be accomplished by as simple as commenting out one line of the
>     existing
>     network router program code. I will be glad to go into the
>     specifics if
>     you can bring their attention to this almost mystic topic.
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>     Abe (2022-11-19 22:50 EST)
>
>
>     On 2022-11-18 18:20, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>     >
>     >> On Nov 18, 2022, at 03:44, Joe Maimon
 wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Mark Tinka wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
>     >>>
>      You could instead use a /31.
>     >>> We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of
>     CPE's that may or may not support this. Having unique
designs per
>     customer does not scale well.
>     >> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should
>     make it mandatory.
>     > Much of Africa in 2023 runs on what the US put into the resale
>     market in the late 1990s, tragically.
>     >
>     >> Its 2023, your folk should be able to handle addressing more
>     advanced than from the 90s. And your betting the future on IPv6?
>     > They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
>     >
>     >>> To be honest, we'll keep using IPv4 for as long as we
have it,
>     and for as long as we can get it from AFRINIC. But it's not
where
>     we are betting the farm - that is for IPv6.
>     > And yet you wonder why I consider AFRINIC’s artificial
extension
>     of the free pool through draconian austerity measures to be a
>     global problem?
>     >
>     >> Its on Afrinic to try and preserve their pool if they wish to
>     by doing things such as getting it across that progress in
>     addressing efficiency is an important consideration in
fulfilling
>     requests for additional resources.
>     > Instead of this, they’re mostly ignoring policy, implementing
>     

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211211223.AYC

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
> examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues
> on this forum can understand.
>

Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to the
proposal in the past on this list.



On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen  wrote:

> Dear Tom:
>
> 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple
> examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues
> on this forum can understand.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)
>
>
>
>
> On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
> >
> > 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
> ...":
> > Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look
> > at the
> > below IETF Draft:
> >
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
> >
> >
> > For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is not an
> > 'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the
> > authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no interest
> > from anyone involved in internet standards, and for various technical
> > reasons , likely never will.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Abraham Y. Chen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Owen:
> >
> > 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
> > ...":
> > Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look
> > at the
> > below IETF Draft:
> >
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
> >
> > 2)  If this looks a bit too technical due to the nature of such a
> > document, there is a distilled version that provides a bird-eye's
> > view
> > of the solution:
> >
> > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
> >
> > 3)  All of the above can start from making use of the 240/4
> > netblock as
> > a reusable (by region / country) unicast IP address resources that
> > could
> > be accomplished by as simple as commenting out one line of the
> > existing
> > network router program code. I will be glad to go into the
> > specifics if
> > you can bring their attention to this almost mystic topic.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Abe (2022-11-19 22:50 EST)
> >
> >
> > On 2022-11-18 18:20, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Nov 18, 2022, at 03:44, Joe Maimon 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mark Tinka wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > >>>
> >  You could instead use a /31.
> > >>> We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of
> > CPE's that may or may not support this. Having unique designs per
> > customer does not scale well.
> > >> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should
> > make it mandatory.
> > > Much of Africa in 2023 runs on what the US put into the resale
> > market in the late 1990s, tragically.
> > >
> > >> Its 2023, your folk should be able to handle addressing more
> > advanced than from the 90s. And your betting the future on IPv6?
> > > They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
> > >
> > >>> To be honest, we'll keep using IPv4 for as long as we have it,
> > and for as long as we can get it from AFRINIC. But it's not where
> > we are betting the farm - that is for IPv6.
> > > And yet you wonder why I consider AFRINIC’s artificial extension
> > of the free pool through draconian austerity measures to be a
> > global problem?
> > >
> > >> Its on Afrinic to try and preserve their pool if they wish to
> > by doing things such as getting it across that progress in
> > addressing efficiency is an important consideration in fulfilling
> > requests for additional resources.
> > > Instead of this, they’re mostly ignoring policy, implementing
> > draconian restrictions on people getting space from the free pool,
> > and buying into various forms of reality avoidance.
> > >
> > >> But see the crux above. If your RiR isnt frowning on such
> > behavior then its poor strategy to implement it.
> > > So far, AFRINIC has given a complete pass to Tinka’s
> > organization and their documented excessive unused address space
> > despite policy that prohibits them from doing so. However, AFRINIC
> > management and board seem to have extreme difficulty with reading
> > their governing documents in anything resembling a logical
> > interpretation.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > www.avast.com 
> >
>
>

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211211223.AYC

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Dear Tom:

1) "... for various technical reasons , ...":  Please give a couple 
examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues 
on this forum can understand.


Thanks,


Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST)




On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote:


1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives. ...":
Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look
at the
below IETF Draft:


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space


For the benefit of anyone who may not understand, this is not an 
'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the 
authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no interest 
from anyone involved in internet standards, and for various technical 
reasons , likely never will.


On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Abraham Y. Chen  
wrote:


Dear Owen:

1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
...":
Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look
at the
below IETF Draft:


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space

2)  If this looks a bit too technical due to the nature of such a
document, there is a distilled version that provides a bird-eye's
view
of the solution:

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

3)  All of the above can start from making use of the 240/4
netblock as
a reusable (by region / country) unicast IP address resources that
could
be accomplished by as simple as commenting out one line of the
existing
network router program code. I will be glad to go into the
specifics if
you can bring their attention to this almost mystic topic.

Regards,


Abe (2022-11-19 22:50 EST)


On 2022-11-18 18:20, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
>> On Nov 18, 2022, at 03:44, Joe Maimon  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Tinka wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
 You could instead use a /31.
>>> We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of
CPE's that may or may not support this. Having unique designs per
customer does not scale well.
>> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should
make it mandatory.
> Much of Africa in 2023 runs on what the US put into the resale
market in the late 1990s, tragically.
>
>> Its 2023, your folk should be able to handle addressing more
advanced than from the 90s. And your betting the future on IPv6?
> They don’t really have a lot of alternatives.
>
>>> To be honest, we'll keep using IPv4 for as long as we have it,
and for as long as we can get it from AFRINIC. But it's not where
we are betting the farm - that is for IPv6.
> And yet you wonder why I consider AFRINIC’s artificial extension
of the free pool through draconian austerity measures to be a
global problem?
>
>> Its on Afrinic to try and preserve their pool if they wish to
by doing things such as getting it across that progress in
addressing efficiency is an important consideration in fulfilling
requests for additional resources.
> Instead of this, they’re mostly ignoring policy, implementing
draconian restrictions on people getting space from the free pool,
and buying into various forms of reality avoidance.
>
>> But see the crux above. If your RiR isnt frowning on such
behavior then its poor strategy to implement it.
> So far, AFRINIC has given a complete pass to Tinka’s
organization and their documented excessive unused address space
despite policy that prohibits them from doing so. However, AFRINIC
management and board seem to have extreme difficulty with reading
their governing documents in anything resembling a logical
interpretation.
>
> Owen
>


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

www.avast.com