Not going to lie, EzIP just seems to be some version of destination/source NAT on steroids.
Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 14:36, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > Hi, Forrest: > > 0) Thanks for your in-depth analysis. > > 1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept clearer. > That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute the current > 100.64/10 netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything else in the > current CG-NAT setup stays unchanged. This makes each CG-NAT cluster 64 > fold bigger. And, various capabilities become available. > > Regards, > > Abe (2024-01-11 22:35) > > > > On 2024-01-11 02:02, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > > I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been > discussed but I'm hoping that this might make a difference. > > Abraham, > > Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of NAT > box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP internet. That > NAT box will have to remain in place until such time as every single > publically addressed device on the public internet has been updated to > support EzIP. In addition, protocols such as DNS, SIP, and others which > pass around addresses will need to be updated to be able to pass the full > EzIP addressing around so endpoints can properly insert the EzIP header, > and so on. > > The point I'm trying to make is that, at this point, deploying EzIP as an > end to end address exhaustion solution has MORE challenges that simply > deploying IPv6 would. This is because, just like EzIP, deploying IPv6 > requires a NAT box of some sort to be put in place until the last IPv4 > device is turned off. But unlike EzIP, almost every new device coming out > supports IPv6 out of the box. All of the technical standards work has > already been done. Thus, the only meaningful barrier to IPv6 at this > point is convincing people to use it, not convincing people to use it PLUS > convincing the tech companies to support it, and doing protocol changes > like you would with EzIP. > > I applaud your attempt at a unique solution but I really feel that ship > has sailed, at least for an EzIP type of solution. Maybe something like > this would have better received years ago, but at this point IPv6 is a much > more logical path forward. > > I do wonder, however, if some of your concepts might be able to be > applied to the IPv6 transition. I have some ideas here, but most, if not > all, of them are only partially cooked but some have similar approaches as > EzIP but with an actual IPv6 packet inside. > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:11 PM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Enno: >> >> 0) Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts. >> >> 1) However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your paper cited >> does not make any specific recommendation about how to utilize the 240/4 >> netblock uniformly across the entire Internet. Our proposal, EzIP outlines >> a scheme that makes a clear use of the 240/4 by the general public, >> basically discouraging disparate private usages. We were very much lost >> with what has been going on with the 240/4 netblock, because there was no >> information about who were using it for what. The RIPE-Lab report clarified >> the fact that it has been fragmented due to unannounced activities by >> multi-national conglomerates and likely nerds, while under the cover of >> "Reserved for Future Use". >> >> 2) " As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if >> not controversial". ... usually means 'breaks something' ": >> >> I am afraid that you read into my diplomatic expression too far. >> >> A. The first step of the EzIP proposal is to enhance the CG-NAT by >> providing it with a much larger netblock, as I presume that Karim is >> looking for. Such process (disabling the program code that has been >> disabling the use of 240/4) does not need any running code to prove it. To >> be blunt, anyone who claims that this will be a real task only shows that >> he does not know his own code. >> >> B. The second EzIP step is to utilize RFC791 for setting up >> end-to-end links which the Internet has not been able to deliver. This is >> because the current predominant CG-NAT based CDN business is a master-slave >> model which does not support it. However, this capability is like >> international postal or telephony services that are not daily needs for >> everyone. So, it should be treated as a premium service that can be >> built up with time base on demand. >> >> Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: >> >> Hi, Karim: >> >> 1)?????? If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your >> business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking >> to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address >> _/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current >> facility that has been */_disabling_/* the use of 240/4 netblock. >> >> As you state yourself this could be considered "unorthodox, if not >> controversial". >> Alas in network operations 'unorthodox' usually means 'breaks something'. >> Which is exactly why you may avoid this, see also: >> https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/ >> >> cheers >> >> Enno >> >> >> >> >> >> Please >> >> have a look at the below whitepaper. Utilized according to the outlined >> disciplines, this is a practically unlimited resources. It has been >> known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it without >> announcement. So, you can do so stealthily according to the proposed >> mechanism which establishes uniform practices, just as well. >> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf >> >> 2)?????? Being an unorthodox solution, if not controversial, please follow >> up with me offline. Unless, other NANOGers express their interests. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2024-01-10 07:34 EST) >> >> >> >> On 2024-01-07 22:46, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote: >> >> Hi Nanog Community >> >> Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price? >> >> Thank you >> >> KARIM >> >> >> -- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software.www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> Virus-free.www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> <#m_-3759812132042785637_m_-2040759016673337921_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > >
