That does not need to be long, Abe. There’s no minimal interval between version. I already published 01… And I do not have a special address format beyond what’s in the draft already. It’s only IPv4 and IPv6. No new address format. Just assigned ranges, and well known IIDs.
To your point: the addresses in each realm are the full IPv4 that we know and they cannot talk directly between realms. They are indeed isolated. Nodes in different floors can only communicate through the shaft. Think of a human and a stairwell. The physical space reserved for the stair well at each level is the same. What people do with the rest of the space is their own. All addresses and AS numbers are reusable. I do not see you image of a sphere. My image of a sphere is IPv6, that contains all the IPv4 “planes”, the shaft, and all the air in between. You design uses the internet as shaft if you like. In that we differ. YADA leaves the internet as is, and allows to build other internets that cannot leak in one another. But participating nodes can communicate through the shaft. If end nodes do not participate, then a stateful Nat is still needed. For most homes that means an upgrade of the stateful NAT in the gateway so the public side has a YATT format, and DNS snooping to provide a A record inside. Same for PLATs. For most servers, that means an update in the load balancer, and a NAT if there was none, to allow to speak to other realms. Whatever happened in the current IPv4 can still do. Some levels can be created IPv6 only from the start, providing YATT addresses to those who need to communicate with the other levels. Keep safe; Pascal From: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 23:45 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Hi, Pascal: 1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I asked for an IP packet header example of your proposal is to visualize what do you mean by the model of "realms and shafts in a multi-level building". The presentation in the draft sounds okay, because the floors are physically isolated from one another. And, even the building is isolated from other buildings. This is pretty much how PBX numbering plan worked. 2) When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, however, you are essential talking about covering the entire surface of the earth. Then, there is no isolated buildings with isolated floors to deploy your model anymore. There is only one spherical layer of physical earth surface for you to use as a realm, which is the current IPv4 deployment. How could you still have multiple full IPv4 address sets deployed, yet not seeing their identical twins, triplets, etc.? Are you proposing multiple spherical layers of "realms", one on top of the other? 2) When I cited the DotConnectAfrica graphic logo as a visual model for the EzIP deployment over current IPv4, I was pretty specific that each RAN was tethered from the current Internet core via one IPv4 address. We were very careful about isolating the netblocks in terms of which one does what. In other words, even though the collection of RANs form a parallel cyberspace to the Internet, you may look at each RAN as an isolated balloon for others. So that each RAN can use up the entire 240/4 netblock. Please clarify your configuration. Thanks, Abe (2022-04-01 17:44) On 2022-04-01 10:55, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: On 2022-04-01 10:00, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: Makes sense, Abe, for the next version. Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT device can only talk to another IPv6 device, where that other device may use a YATT address or any other IPv6 address. But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby steps for those who want to. Keep safe; Pascal From: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com><mailto:ayc...@avinta.com> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49 To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com><mailto:vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com><mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>; Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com><mailto:strein...@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC 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><mailto:vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com><mailto:strein...@gmail.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com><mailto: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<mailto:vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com<mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>>; Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com<mailto:strein...@gmail.com>>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM To: Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com<mailto:strein...@gmail.com>>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com<mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto: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<mailto: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. [Image removed by sender.]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
