Hi, Christopher:
1) " Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space?
Wait, I'm lost... ":
Correct. This is one way to visualize the EzIP deployment. This
configuration is so far the most concise manner to describe the the EzIP
building block, RAN (Regional Area Network). The nice thing about this
approach is that everything exists and is already working daily in each
CG-NAT cluster. All needed to expand its capability is a larger
netblock. Since 240/4 is fundamentally not an outlier in the overall
IPv4 address pool, except being classified as "Reserved" for a long
time, enabling it to work in a CG-NAT should not be any big challenge.
2) " ... There is no such thing as "semi-private" space in the
world of CGNAT, ... ":
Correct. However, not distinguishing 100.64/10 netblock from the
common public and private parts of the IPv4 space made it vague as which
function does it provide. That is, in terms of re-usability for each
isolated geographical area, it is like another RFC1918 private netblock.
On the other hand, CG-NAT is clearly used in geographically public
areas. So, 100.64/10 should be classified as "public". In addition,
100.64/10 is listed according to "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" as
part of the 100/8 netblock under ARIN, but now used by everyone
worldwide. To avoid similar ambiguity that leads to confusions, we
decided to call 240/4 as "semi-public" to more explicitly convey the
concept. (Actually, we initially called 240/4 "semi-private" thinking
that it could be the fourth RFC1918 netblock, until we realized that the
RFC6589 environment was a much better fit.)
3) " Your "solution" to residential gateways not supporting the use
of 240/4 space being upgraded to OpenWrt won't work, because not all CPE
supports OpenWrt. ":
OpenWrt is just an open source RG code that can replace that in
commercial RGs that have been supporting CPEs. Like the EzIP concept,
the OpenWrt upgrade of RG-NAT is an enhancement to the existing RG
functionality. Thus, OpenWrt enabled RGs can operate with the
combination of public (including RFC6589) with 240/4 netblocks on the
upstream (WAN) side, and private (RFC1918) with 240/4 netblocks on the
downstream (LAN) side. So, there is no compatibility change that a CPE
(on-premises IoT) can sense. This critical characteristics was the
result of an OpenWrt core code upgrade in 2019 contributed by Dave Taht
of "IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project". Before that, EzIP was just a
theoretically feasible scheme.
4) In addition, OpenWrt at least works with one network router by
D-Link (see URL below). This means that, with both WAN and LAN sides of
a router supporting 240/4, a beginner's reference RAN can be built and
experimented with it:
https://us.dlink.com/en/products/dgs-1210-28-28-port-gigabit-smart-managed-switch
5) " Instead of attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT, IPv6 is
definitely the easier solution to implement as the vast majority of
vendors already support v6. ":
Since the general consensus is that for moving ahead, we will rely
on Dual-Stack to bridge IPv6 and IPv4 worlds enabling them to coexist
for the foreseeable future, it would more expedient for the community as
a whole, if we could focus on technical discussions for each camp
respectively, while minimizing invitation messages from the other side.
I hope you do agree.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-15 11:27)
On 2024-01-15 00:09, Christopher Hawker wrote:
Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space? Wait, I'm
lost...
With CGNAT, there is either public IP space in front of the gateway,
or private space behind it. There is no such thing as "semi-private"
space in the world of CGNAT, as devices with public IPs can't directly
access devices behind a CGNAT gateway with a 100.64/10 address. It's
either a public address, or a private address (not to be confused with
an RFC1918 private address).
Let's talk hypothetically for a minute and assume that 240/4 is used
as CGNAT space. Your "solution" to residential gateways not supporting
the use of 240/4 space being upgraded to OpenWRT won't work, because
not all CPE supports OpenWRT.
Instead of attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT, IPv6 is
definitely the easier solution to implement as the vast majority of
vendors already support v6.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:06, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Mike:
1) "... only private use. ...":
The EzIP deployment plan is to use 240/4 netblock as
"Semi-Public" addresses for the existing CG-NAT facility. With
many RG-NATs (Routing / Residential Gateway -NATs) already capable
of being 240/4 clients thru the upgrade to OpenWrt, no IoT on any
private premises will sense any change.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-14 23:04)
On 2024-01-12 15:16, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm not talking about global, public use, only private use.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
