Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above

2022-11-23 Thread Matthew Petach
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:26 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Dear Tom: * > [...] > > 2) "...Your proposal appears to rely on a specific value in the IP > option header to create your overlay": Not really, as soon as the > 100.64/10 netblock is replaced by the 240/4, each CG-NAT module can > se

Happy Thanksgiving! Betty Burke Tribute Video + OARC Event

2022-11-23 Thread Nanog News
*Happy Thanksgiving * *We are Grateful for Community Members Like You! * *NANOG truly takes a village, and we wouldn't be here without members like you. * Thank you for your support in building the Internet of Tomorrow. We wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving. *VIDEO - In Memory of Betty

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211231506.AYC

2022-11-23 Thread Abraham Y. Chen
Dear Eric: 0) Your analysis may have started from an assumption that is different from that of the EzIP. That is, 1)  The EzIP proposes to use the 240/4 as a replacement of the 100.64/10 of RFC6598 for enhancing the CG-NAT. Thus, 240/4 will be used as reusable netblocks like those in RFC1918