On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 9:48 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote:
> Vint told you the same thing other people have been telling you for years. > You don't seem to name drop anyone else. Weird. > Indeed — Vint made an observation, but this was not intended to be endorsement… Implying that it is is disingenuous… W > Respectfully, you have no credibility in this area. I happened to notice > this gem re-reading your draft last night, > > A.1.1. T1a Initiates a Session Request towards T4a >> >> T1a sends a session request to SPR4 that serves T4a by a plain IP >> packet with header as in Figure 5, to RG1. There is no TCP port >> number in this IP header yet. >> >> > That's a curious statement there at the end. Let's continue though. > > A.1.2. RG1 Forwards the Packet to SPR1 >> >> RG1, allowing be masqueraded by T1a, relays the packet toward SPR1 >> by assigning the TCP Source port number, 3N, to T1a, with a header as >> in Figure 6,. Note that the suffix "N" denotes the actual TCP port >> number assigned by the RG1's RG-NAT. This could assume multiple >> values, each represents a separate communications session that T1a is >> engaged in. A corresponding entry is created in the RG1 state table >> for handling the reply packet from the Destination site. Since T4a's >> TCP port number is not known yet, it is filled with all 1's. >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 1 |Version|IHL (6)|Type of Service| Total Length (24) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 2 | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 3 | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 4 | Source Host Number (240.0.0.0) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 5 | Destination Host Number (69.41.190.148) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 6 | Source Port (3N) | Destination Port (All 1's) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> Figure 6 TCP/IP Header: From RG1 to SPR1 >> >> > Wait a second.. what is a 'TCP/IP header'? > > A.1.5. T4a Replies to SPR4 >> >> T4a interchanges the Source and Destination identifications in the >> incoming TCP/IP packet to create a header as in Figure 9, for the >> reply packet to SPR4. >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 1 |Version|IHL (6)|Type of Service| Total Length (24) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 2 | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 3 | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 4 | Source Host Number (240.0.0.10) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 5 | Destination Host Number (69.41.190.110) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> 6 | Source Port (10C) | Destination Port (0C) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> Figure 9 TCP/IP Header: From T4a to SPR4 >> >> > Oh my.. you actually meant it. > > The draft authors don't appear to understand that TCP headers and IP > headers **are not the same thing**. > > I would suggest reviewing RFC 791 ( IPv4 ) , and RFC 793 / 9293 ( TCP, > original and updated ). > > > > On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 7:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi, Tom: >> >> 1) " ... Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP >> ... ": >> >> FYI - Please see the below copy of a partial eMail thread. Bold, red >> colored and Italicized letters are to focus on the topic. >> >> *********** >> >> >> internetpol...@elist.isoc.org eMail thread >> >> >> On 2021-10-18 16:34, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: >> >> >> Dear Vint: >> >> >> Yes, this is one perspective for visualizing the EzIP proposal. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Abe (2021-10-18 16:33 EDT) >> >> >> Re: [Internet Policy] 202110180800.AYC Re: Platform self-regulation >> >> >> On 2021-10-18 10:39, *vinton cerf* wrote: >> >> >> sounds like *eZIP* is basically an *overlay* network. >> >> >> *v* >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:33 AM Abraham Y. Chen via InternetPolicy < >> internetpol...@elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, Scott: >> >> >> 0) Thanks for your research. >> >> >> 1) Both SCION (based on my best understanding) and our work named >> EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) are technical solutions for improving the >> Internet from its foundation level (the architecture). There are many >> implications with such schemes including social and legal if one looks into >> them. >> >> >> 2) As I responded to Gene's questions (See my eMail with subject line >> tag: "202110171756.AYC"), the SCION approach implements certain >> restrictions ...... >> >> ************ >> >> 2) Prior to the above, we were quite unsure about what our team was >> doing. So, I purposely avoided having any contact with Vint. We had been >> describing the EzIP's RANs (Regional Area Networks) as "kites floating in >> the air over an geographic area anchored by an IPv4 address based cord". >> Although visually clear, it was too wordy. By using one concise word, >> *overlay*, Vint eloquently classified the EzIP network in terminology >> sense. It opened our eyes about what were the implications of EzIP and what >> could be the interactions with respect to the existing Internet, because >> EzIP was a non-interfering enhancement to an existing system which was a >> text book case of systems engineering. >> >> Hope the above clears the air. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2024-01-13 07:34) >> >> >> On 2024-01-12 19:24, Tom Beecher wrote: >> >> >> I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I come out to >> see Mr. Chen : >> - Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6 >> - Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP >> >> Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage. >> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:46 PM Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> <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> >> >
