Hi, Jordi:
1) " ... Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some
parts of Internet will affect others? ... ": The nice thing about the
EzIP scheme is that it proposes a collection of overlay network modules
(the RAN - Regional Area Network), each is tethered from the existing
Internet core via one IPv4 public address as the umbilical cord which
isolates the two, except exchanging IP packets conforming to the
established Internet protocol. So, EzIP essentially proposes to create a
parallel cyberspace practically independent of the current one. There
should be no concern about interfering each other.
2) " ... many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4:
... ": Perhaps I am from the old engineer school, I was inspired
by a street legend that,
After Thomas Edison tried over one thousand types of material to
replace the lead-acid battery, people with conventional wisdom declared
that he had failed one thousand times. Edison responded by saying that
"I now know there are at least one thousand types of material that can
not replace the lead-acid battery.
The moral of the story is that after one century, we are now
beginning to use Lithium based battery which by itself went through
tremendous amount of R&D efforts. So, I highly respect those who focus
on alternative possibilities, instead of those regurgitating on
unsuccessful discussions of proposals, let alone those avoid studying
the root cause of the failed experiments.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-13 21:45)
------------------------------
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 13
Message: 23
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:21:01 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
To: North American Network Operators' Group<nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
Message-ID:<be38196a-abe8-4445-bf65-cb3e02b8c...@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will
affect others?
Because, at least in my case, I'm investing my efforts in what it seems to be
the best in the long-term for the global community, not my personal preferences?
?El 12/3/22 9:10, "William Herrin"<b...@herrin.us> escribi?:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
<nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6
is the only viable long-term solution.
>
> The effort to ?reinvent? any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test
that everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it
is much best invested in continue the IPv6 deployment which is already going on in
this region and the rest of the world.
>
> It would not make sense, to throw away all the efforts that have been
already done with IPv6 and we should avoid confusing people.
>
> I just think that even this thread is a waste of time (and will not
further participate on it), time that can be employed in continue deploying IPv6.
Why are so many otherwise smart engineers so vulnerable to false
dilemma style fallacies? There's no "either/or" here. It's not a zero
sum game. If you don't see value in doing more with IPv4 then why
don't you get out of the way of folks who do?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
**********************************************
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
