Hi, Forrest:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1): The initial deployment of EzIP overlay is only
applying 240/4 to existing (IPv4 based) CG-NAT facility to become the
overlaying RAN, plus upgrading RG-NATs (Routing / Residential NATs) to
OpenWrt. So that none of the on-premises IoTs will sense any changes. I
don't see how an upgrade of such equipment to IPv6 could be simpler and
less work. Please elaborate.
2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Since the RAN still appear to be the original
CG-NAT to the Internet through the same IPv4 link to the Internet core,
services from Google, YouTube, etc. will not know something has changed
either.
3) " ... someone with enough market power is going to basically say
"enough is enough" ... ":
We need to look at this transition with a "Divide and Conquer"
perspective. That is, the CG-NAT and consequently the RAN are part of
IAP (Internet Access Provider) facility. While Google, YouTube, etc. are
ICPs (Internet Content Providers). Relatively speaking, the IAP is like
the hardware part of a system, while ICP is the software. They are two
separate parts when combined will provide the service that customers
want. Normally, these two parts are separate businesses, although some
may be under the same owner in some situations. The scenario that you
are proposing is like back to the old Bell System days when AT&T decided
everything. I am sure that Internet players will try very hard to avoid
being labelled as such.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-15 00:02)
On 2024-01-13 03:30, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
A couple of points:
1) There is less work needed to support IPv6 than your proposed
solution. I'm not taking about 230/4. I'm talking about your EzIP
overlay.
2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4
for any of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the
future. That is, you either needed an IPv6 address or you couldn't
reach Google, youtube, Gmail and the rest of the public services. I
bet that in this scenario every eyeball provider in the country all of
a sudden would be extremely motivated to deploy IPv6, even if the IPv4
providers end up natting their IPv4 customers to IPv6. I really
expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for IPv4.
Or stated differently: at some point someone with enough market power
is going to basically say "enough is enough" and make the decision for
the rest of us that IPv4 is effectively done on the public internet.
The large tech companies all have a history of sunsetting things when
it becomes a bigger problem to support than it's worth. Try getting a
modern browser that works on 32 bit windows. Same with encryption
protocols, Java in the browser, Shockwave and flash, and on and on.
I see no reason why IPv4 should be any different.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 3:42 PM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Forrest:
0) You put out more than one topic, all at one time. Allow me
to address each briefly.
1) " The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every
provider's side and every provider that has one wants to make it
go away as quickly as possible. ":
The feeling and desire are undeniable facts. However, the
existing configuration was evolved from various considerations
through a long time. There is a tremendous inertia accumulated on
it. There is no magic bullet to get rid of it quickly. We must
study carefully to evolve it further incrementally. Otherwise, an
even bigger headache or disaster will happen.
2) " The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the
need for any CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space. ":
The obvious answer was IPv6. However, its performance after
near two decades of deployment has not been convincing. EzIP is an
alternative, requiring hardly any development, to address this
need immediately.
3) " Until the cost (or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the
cost to move, we're going to see continued resistance to doing
so. ":
This strategy is easily said than done. It reminds me of my
system planning work for the old AT&T. At that time, Bell
Operating Companies(BOCs) could be coerced to upgrade their
facility by just gradually raising the cost of owning the old
equipment by assuming fewer would be be used, while the newer
version would cost less because growing number of deployments.
Looking at resultant financial forecast, the BOC decisions were
easy. Originally trained as a hardware radio engineer, I was
totally stunned. But, it worked well under the regulated monopoly
environment.
Fast forward by half a century, the Internet promotes
distributed approaches. Few things can be controlled by limited
couple parties. The decision of go or no-go is made by parties in
the field who have their own respective considerations.
Accumulated, they set the direction of the Internet. In this case,
IPv6 has had the opportunity of over four decades of planning and
nearly two decades of deployment. Its future growth rate is set by
its own performance merits. No one can force its rate by
persuasion tactic of any kind. Hoping so is wishful thinking which
contributes to wasteful activities. So, we need realistic planning.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-12 18:42)
On 2024-01-12 01:34, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
The problem isn't the quantity of "inside" CG-NAT address space.
It's the existence of CG-NAT at all.
It doesn't matter if the available space is a /12 or a /4, you
still need something to translate it to the public internet.
The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's
side and every provider that has one wants to make it go away as
quickly as possible.
The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the need
for any CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space. As I
pointed out, IPv6 is already ready and proven to work so moving
to IPv6 is a straightforward process technically. What isn't
straightforward is convincing IPv4 users to move. Until the cost
(or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the cost to move,
we're going to see continued resistance to doing so.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 7:36 PM 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)
<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_-2264817505018915121_m_-871507042037526857_m_-3709659627675338528_m_5461191486991014945_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com