Hi, Pascal:
What I would appreciate is an IP packet header design/definition layout,
word-by-word, ideally in bit-map style, of an explicit presentation of
all IP addresses involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the
second realm. This will provide a clearer picture of how the real world
implementation may look like.
Thanks,
Abe (2022-04-01 09:48)
On 2022-04-01 08:49, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
As I understand: “IPv4 Realms” between “Shaft” should be capable to
have a plain IPv4 header (or else why all of these).
Then Gateway in the Shaft should change headers (from IPv4 to IPv6).
Who should implement this gateway and why? He should be formally
appointed to such an exercise, right?
Map this 2 level hierarchy to the real world – you may fail with this.
Ed/
*From:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthub...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Justin Streiner
<strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard:
Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot
be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue that some things will have to be
planned between stake holders, and that it will not be easy.
But you know what the French say about “impossible”.
Or to paraphrase Sir Arthur, now that we have eliminated all the
impossible transition scenarios, whatever remains…
There will be YADA prefixes just like there are root DNS. To be
managed by different players as you point out. And all routable within
the same shaft.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>; Justin Streiner
<strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi Pascal,
In general, your idea to create a hierarchy is good.
In practice, it would fail because you have created a virtual
hierarchy that does not map to any administrative border. Who should
implement gateways for the “Shaft”? Why?
If you would appoint Carrier as the Shaft responsible then it is not
enough bits for Shaft.
If you would appoint Governments as the Shaft responsible then would
be a so big scandal that you would regret the proposal.
Hence, I do not see proper mapping for the hierarchy to make YADA
successful.
Eduard
*From:* NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org
<mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org>] *On
Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
*Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM
*To:* Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen
<ayc...@avinta.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
For the sake of it, Justin, I just published
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.
The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range in an
IPv4-only world. For some people that might be enough and I’m totally
fine with that.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco....@nanog.org> *On Behalf
Of *Justin Streiner
*Sent:* dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
*To:* Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* 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 knowledgeable on that to speak up
if they're so inclined.
Thank you
jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
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, please make it public. I am sure that many are
eager to learn about it. Thanks.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
