Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:09 , Jared Brown wrote: > > Randy Carpenter wrote: Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support >>> >>> Out of interest, how would this come about? >> >> ISPs are facing ever growing

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

> On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible >> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at >> least 2015. >> >> Well… It’s a consensus p

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 30, 2022, at 08:09 , Jared Brown wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support >>> >>> Out of interest, how would this come about? >> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > Could

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 17:51 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving >>> the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet. >> Nope… It really isn’t. > > Wrong. > >> The problem of audit trail opacity is still a m

Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

og.org>> On Behalf Of Owen > DeLong via NANOG > Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM > To: Abraham Y. Chen mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> > Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> > Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported > re: 202203261833

Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

G > Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard > Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM > To: Jared Brown , "nanog@nanog.org" > Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) > >Hi Jared, >Theoretically, MAP is better. But > >1. Nobody has implemented i

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that: - Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) IP mobility WG of IETF was formed in 1992. - Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big a

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM To: Tom Beecher Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Tom Beecher wrote: If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet

RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

ot for the lack of IETF work. Keep safe; Pascal > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of > Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG > Sent: jeudi 31 mars 2022 14:36 > To: Joe Maimon ; Tom Beecher > Cc: NANOG > Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 s

RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM To: Tom Beecher Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Tom Beecher wrote: > > If t

RE: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:56 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: > CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same > performance. That sho

RE: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

. Pascal > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark > Andrews > Sent: jeudi 31 mars 2022 1:32 > To: NANOG > Subject: Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not > supported) > > > > > On 26 Mar 2022, at 21:51, Philip H

Re: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same performance. That should be because you are comparing cost of carrier, that is telco, grade NAT and consumer grade routers. Remember the cost of carrier grade datalink of SONET/SDH.

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Tom Beecher wrote: If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure. That is not an accurate statement. The IETF has achieved consensus on this

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

> On 26 Mar 2022, at 21:51, Philip Homburg wrote: > >>> If there is a magical transition technology that allows an IPv6-only host t >> o >>> talk to an IPv4-only host, then let's deploy it. >> >> DNS64/NAT64, DS-Lite, 6rd, 464XLAT, MAP-T, MAP-E, ? pick a transition >> protocol and see what ha

Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

c: NANOG > Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported > re: 202203261833.AYC > > Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets > introduced. > > What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtuall

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:47:08 -0700 John Gilmore wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ The draft touches on IANA considerations, but this seems inadequate to make any more progress and gain wider acceptance. It seems to me there has been compelling argumen

Re: V6 still not supported

ert (pthubert) via NANOG > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:55 AM > To: Philip Homburg <mailto:pch-nano...@u-1.phicoh.com>>; nanog@nanog.org > <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>; 'jordi.palet' (jordi.pa...@consulintel.es > <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>) <m

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

> > If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly > supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is > seriously problematic and a huge process failure. > That is not an accurate statement. The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here

Re: V6 still not supported

Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony problem than an IPv4 problem. - Jared Jordi Palet wrote: It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all

Re: V6 still not supported

It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4 addresses ... So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more sen

Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 1:21 PM John Kristoff wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 > Jared Brown wrote: > > > IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing > > $X/month cost. > > From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, > what happens downst

Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 Jared Brown wrote: > IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing > $X/month cost. From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, what happens downstream? When you rent servers from providers, unless you bring your ow

Re: V6 still not supported

Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > >> >> > > >> >> > Out of interest, how would this come about? > >> >> > >> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > >> >

Re: V6 still not supported

- On Mar 30, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote: > Randy Carpenter wrote: >> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support >> >> > >> >> > Out of interest, how would this come about? >> >> >> >> ISPs are fa

Re: V6 still not supported

Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > >> > > >> > Out of interest, how would this come about? > >> > >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > > Could you please be

RE: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

n the cost. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Brown Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:33 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported) An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is

Re: V6 still not supported

- On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote: > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support >> > >> > Out of interest, how would this come about? >> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015. Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply t

CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is the cost of scaling CGNAT or equivalent infrastructure for IPv4. Those of you facing costs for scaling CGNAT, are your per unit costs rising or declining faster or slower than your IPv4 traffic growth? I ask because I realize I am not fit to evaluate the

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > > > > Out of interest, how would this come about? > > ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referrin

Re: V6 still not supported

Doug McIntyre wrote: > > Jared Brown wrote: > > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > > > > Out of interest, how would this come about? > > It already happens, more along the lines of "Business Class" vs. "Residential > Class". >

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Tom Beecher wrote: > I'd be curious to see the data you guys have collected on what it has been > confirmed to work on if that's available somewhere. The Implementation Status of unicast 240/4 is in the Appendix of our draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong wrote: As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet. Nope… It really isn’t. Wrong. The problem of audit trail opacity is still a major issue with any form of stateful NAT. How poorly you understand NAT. As

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 26, 2022, at 17:30 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> It still looks like NAT to me. > > Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT > as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition > plan from IPv4 to IPv6. > >> NAT is a disgusting

Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

> > > *From:* NANOG *On Behalf > Of *Owen DeLong via NANOG > *Sent:* March 29, 2022 3:52 PM > *To:* Abraham Y. Chen > *Cc:* NANOG > *Subject:* [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not > supported re: 202203261833.AYC > > > > Submit

IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM To: Abraham Y. Chen Cc: NANOG Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced. What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virt

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced. What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015. Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC

Just because there is a small code snippet you found that prevents casting 240/4 as unicast on an interface doesn’t mean that removing that code will magically make 240/4 usable in the entire stack. It’s also important to note that there are at least a dozen IPv4 stacks in common use with diffe

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 26, 2022, at 09:37 , Tom Beecher wrote: > > Have you ever considered that this may be in fact: > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > way you expect > > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that > it's 'not

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> > A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my > ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router). > My experience is the opposite. My home edge router (dd-wrt) will pass it, but nothing in my ISP's network will. $DayJob networks aren't worth chec

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 26, 2022, at 06:35 , Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > Hi, Owen: > > 0)Re: Ur. Pt. 2):This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it > aside for now, until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme to you. > > 00)Re: Ur. Pt. 4):Okay, I was concerned about how to

RE: V6 still not supported

[cid:image001.png@01D842A4.69CBE6F0] Hmm. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:55 AM To: Philip Homburg ; nanog@nanog.org; 'jordi.palet' (jordi.pa...@consulintel.es) Subject: RE: V6 still not

RE: V6 still not supported

: samedi 26 mars 2022 12:24 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > > >The only far ressemblance with 6to4 is the thing that was actually nice > >in the design, the automatic word in automatic tunnel. Which for the > >rest of us mean s stateless. Compar

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

Philip Homburg wrote: It should be clear that an IPv4-only host only speaks IPv4. This means that communication with an IPv4-only host has to be IPv4. This did not have to be true, had there been an extension/option standardized at the same time as IPv6 for IPv4 packets to be gateway'd int

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Joshua Mallad wrote: I am growing extremely frustrated by the lack of available internet address space. Then, let's have NAT with 32bit port numbers. How many times are you going to extend and hack away at IPv4, Perhaps, only once, which means NAT. Anyway, it is a lot less than hacks to t

Re: V6 still not supported

Philip Homburg wrote: Any form of communication with the current IPv4 internet requires some sort of CGNAT. Any form of communication with the current IPv4/IPv6 mixed internet, except for dual stack, also requires some sort of NAT. Technically, A+P (address plus port) mapping is a bit differ

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:22 AM Philip Homburg wrote: > >If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational > set of > >options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only > to IPv > >6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level of

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

I don't think we can say that NAT64 is a disaster. I will say so if we want to keep IPv4 only hosts in the "6" side, of course it doesn't work. However, that's why we moved further with 464XLAT. And the demonstration is that most of the operators are using it. I think in your picture you're mis

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

I usually keep quiet on this list, but this topic is relevant to me as a smaller (non-BGP level) network operator who would really love to see more IPv6 deployment. I don't have experience deploying internet technologies at the highest level, so I can't say I fully understand the difficulties surro

Re: V6 still not supported

>The only far ressemblance with 6to4 is the thing that was actually nice in the > design, the automatic word in automatic tunnel. Which for the rest of us mean >s stateless. Compared to CGNATs that is huge. Any form of communication with the current IPv4 internet requires some sort of CGNAT. We no

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

> > If there is a magical transition technology that allows an IPv6-only host t > o > > talk to an IPv4-only host, then let's deploy it. > > DNS64/NAT64, DS-Lite, 6rd, 464XLAT, MAP-T, MAP-E, ? pick a transition > protocol and see what happens! (with more coming every year...) The problem with th

Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM To: Jared Brown , "nanog@nanog.org" Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Hi Jared, Theoretically, MAP is better. But 1. Nobody has implemented it for

Re: V6 still not supported

>A host in the Internet that wants to talk to a host in China would require an >update to parse new DNS double-A (realm, address) records to encapsulate the p >acket IP-in-IP, outer src= 240.0.0.1 outer dest=240.0.0.2. The router that ser >ves the shaft at level 1 attracts 240.0.0.0/8 within realm

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

>If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational set of >options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only to IPv >6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level of effor >t reasonable comparable to just running IPv4, then I would

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a fundamental part of this discussion. Formerly separate networks containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without renumberi

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Christopher Morrow wrote: > I think the advice in the draft, and on the quoted page of Google cloud > docs is that you can use whatever address space you want for your voc > network. I think it also says that choosing poorly could make portions if > the internet unreachable. > > I don't see that

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Brandon: 1)    "So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections?  ..  ":    There is difference between "via one IPv4 public address" and "wide bandwidth or multiple channels". The former is called "numbering plan". The latter is part of "traffic engineering". The former defines t

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Mar 27, 2022, at 12:18 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > I am baffled by why does it cause problems on this mailing list. Are you aware that NANOG is not an IETF list? What would you guess might be the topic of a list associate

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Mar 27, 2022, at 12:18 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > Honestly, I am still trying to figure out what is the "required" etiquette, > since what I have received were mostly "complaints" not constructive > "instructions" (i.e.,

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Hi, Randy: 1)    " ...  does not mean it is trivial to get it done on *billions* of device.  ... ":    It looks that your mind is focused on upgrading existing IoTs. They are not to be perturbed according to the initial and short term EzIP deployment plans, because it basically is following th

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 21:42 John Gilmore wrote: > > Today Google is documenting to its cloud customers that they should use > 240/4 for internal networks. (Read draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240 for > the citation.) We have received inquiries from two other huge Internet > companies, which are i

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

According to james.cut...@consultant.com : >> which, in general, requires provider change and renumbering >> of globally unique addresses, unless you own /24. > >Moot since we are not discussing office moves. However, renumbering to global >IPv6 addressing allows easy coexistence with the global I

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: > > > I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger > > involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is > > required and which partially or fully overlap. > > As you

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi, Justin: 1)        "  denying that anyone is being stopped from */working on/* IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to */communicate via /*IPv4.    ": The two topics are quite different. It looks that we may have some language issues here. So, allow me to stop. Regards, Abe (2022-03-2

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Abe: To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via IPv4. I have seen no evidence of that. I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more knowledg

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On 27 March 2022 15:53:25 Brandon Butterworth wrote: On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4 address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one IPv4 public address. So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connection

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4 > address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one IPv4 > public address. So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections? Nobody of scale would accept such a limitation. It

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: > I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger > involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is > required and which partially or fully overlap. As you mention "overlap", you should mean business merger implies network and

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: It still looks like NAT to me. Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition plan from IPv4 to IPv6. NAT is

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

John Gilmore wrote: Tom Beecher wrote: */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the way you expect While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the scale of that c

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Dear John: 0)    Appreciate very much for your comments. 1)    "A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router).   ":    Great, this confirms our experience. While our team's skill is far inferior t

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Paul Rolland wrote: Hello, On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:35:30 -0400 "Abraham Y. Chen" wrote: touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/* the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to univer

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 21:18 , James R Cutler mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com>> wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an end to the IPv4-t

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/26/22 17:38, Joe Greco wrote: It seems like it should only require changes on a few billion nodes, given the size of the IPv4 address space, right? Oh, wait, NAT... Oh, wait again, several million of those few billion nodes have their code burned into ROM soldered to the board. -- Jay

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Tom Beecher wrote: > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > > way you expect > > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that > it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the > scale of that challenge.

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> It still looks like NAT to me. > > Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT > as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition > plan from IPv4 to IPv6. > >> NAT is a disgusting hack a

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: It still looks like NAT to me. Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition plan from IPv4 to IPv6. NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer nature of the internet in favor

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 12:37:59PM -0400, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > > Have you ever considered that this may be in fact: > > > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > > way you expect > > > > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand wav

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

- On Mar 26, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Abraham Y. Chen ayc...@avinta.com wrote: > Hi, Tom & Paul: > 1) " ... hand waved ... ": Through my line of work, I was trained to behave > exactly the opposite. I am surprised at you jumping to the conclusion, even > before challenging me about where did I ge

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi, Justin: 1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...     ":   After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way,

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Hi, Tom & Paul: 1)    " ... hand waved ...  ":    Through my line of work, I was trained to behave exactly the opposite. I am surprised at you jumping to the conclusion, even before challenging me about where did I get my viewpoint from. The fact is, it has been clearly documented in our IETF

Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

It comes from actual measurements in residential networks that already offer IPv6. In typical residential networks, a very high % of the traffic is Google/Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, CDNs, etc., which all are IPv6 enabled. Typically, is also similar in mobile networks, and this has been confirm

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC

> > It was quite frustrating since we did not have the background in > networking software You clearly still do not, if you sincerely believe that commenting out a single function in every vendor software implementation is all that it would take. No need to respond ; I will be filtering all futu

Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

It appears that JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG said: >At the end, if you turn on IPv6 to residential customers, typically you will >get 70-80% IPv6 traffic, so the state in the NAT64 using 464XLAT is lower and >lower every day. Not disagreeing, but where does that number come from? Anectodall

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC

Hi, Paul: 1)    " ...  may be in fact: /writing/* and */deploying/* the code  ... ":    Having no idea why and how the 240/4 netblock became so mysteriously kept away from being used while the IPv4 was officially already on its way to "Sun Set", we started the conventional approach as you sta

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> > Have you ever considered that this may be in fact: > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > way you expect > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps th

v6ops-transition-comparison (was: Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported))

Jordi - Very nice indeed! Please pass along my thanks to your coauthors for this most excellent (and badly needed) document! :-) /John > On 25 Mar 2022, at 4:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG > wrote: > > The cost of deploying MAP in CPEs is a bit higher than 464XLAT, which i

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Hello, On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:35:30 -0400 "Abraham Y. Chen" wrote: > touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/* > the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 > netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to universal Have you eve

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Owen: 0)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2): This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it aside for now, until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme to you. 00)    Re: Ur. Pt. 4):    Okay, I was concerned about how to decipher this cryptic exchange. So let's put it aside as well. 1)   

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 25, 2022, at 18:47 , Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > ** Resend to go through NANOG ** > > > On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: >> Dear Owen: >> >> 0)You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are >> interesting and crucial views that I would like to

Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC

is stuck behind the PM wall as well. Keep safe; Pascal Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michael Thomas Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 22:37 To:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: john, fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one

Re: V6 still not supported R: 202203232156.AYC

port from your side to pass the PM bar. Keep safe; Pascal *From:* Abraham Y. Chen *Sent:* mercredi 23 mars 2022 16:59 *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) *Cc:* Michael Thomas ; nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Dear Pascal: 0)    So glad to see your recount

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

* Resend to go through NANOG On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Dear Owen: 0)    You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope tha

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

**  Resend to go through NANOG ** On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Dear Owen: 0)    You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am p

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 25, 2022, at 06:30 , Jared Brown wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > > Out of interest, how would this come about? ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Likely they will ev

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 21:18 , James R Cutler > wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: >> >> I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is >> an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s contin

RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 12:44 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Jared Brown ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I am aware of). Charter communications is one of the public references

Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

@nanog.org Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this. Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the provider s

Re: V6 still not supported

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Jared Brown wrote: > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > > Out of interest, how would this come about? It already happens, more along the lines of "Business Class" vs. "Residential Class".

<    1   2   3   4   >