[lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back internet innovation Re: 202201221137.AYC
Abraham Y. Chen
aychen en avinta.com
Sab Ene 22 17:28:03 -03 2022
Hi, Henri:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1): Thanks for your advice. It was not clear when I
signed up to the mailing list. I am sending this MSG directly to
lacnog en lacnic.net as you stated, with Cc: back to us as check points.
What I am sharing is intended for the well being of the general public.
There is no privacy concerns. So, I am including the entire thread
below, starting from your initial post. Let's see what may happen.
2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Thanks for the IPv4 auction market data. Now that
you have brought this topic up, do you see how any developing regions
can outbid big players such as Amazon, etc.? Then, what is the
consequence of this trend?
3) Re: Ur. Pt. 3): Thanks for the interview of Vint Cerf. I am not at
a position to ask questions. I will continue my learning from whatever
becomes public.
4) Re: Ur. Pt. 4) "... Rapid host identification in case of an audit
or police investigation. ...": Actually, our proposal, EzIP may be
viewed as an address resource replacement for the CG-NAT while
maintaining its current position in the Internet architecture. So, there
is no hardware change for the IAP (Internet Access Provider --- as
opposed to ICP - Internet Content Provider. I have found using these as
subsets of the commonly known ISP can minimize the confusions.). Then,
the disciplined address administration proposed by EzIP will make the
host identification goal none-issue because it is inherent.
5) Re: Ur. Pt. 5) " I am Brazilian and I speak little English and
Spanish. ": So, your native tongue is Portuguese? Understood.
6) Re: Ur. Pt. 5) " I didn't know about this draft. ... I will read
with great care and attention. ... is it worth investing in any study
or change in IPv4, a protocol that is no longer standard? ": This
is a very intertwined situation. Allow me to be brief. Our EzIP work
started as a curiosity about IPv4 address pool exhaustion. By the time
we came to something chewable, the Internet community had decided to
phase out IPv4. We were not informed of the Working Group SunSet4,
except allowed to post semi-annual updates of our progress to IETF. So,
you would not have known the existence of such IETF drafts unless you
were specifically searching with relevant keywords. What is interesting
is that recently, I began to hear certain opinions such as "IPv6 is
still seen as an option, rather than an urgent necessity." Also, there
is a group of Internet veterans who have been working on the "IPv4
Unicast Extensions Project" that tries to extend the IPv4 in certain
areas. One of them overlaps with EzIP. You may want to have a look at it
(see URL below). The key questions at the moment would be; Is there
anything that only IPv6 can do? And, would it be worthwhile, if finite
effort in IPv4 is required to revamp the Internet?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-01
I look forward to your thoughts,
Abe (2022-01-22 15:27 EST)
On 2022-01-22 11:21, Henri Alves de Godoy wrote:
> Hi, Abraham !!! The comments are below ,
>
>
>
>
> On 2022-01-21 23:12, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>> Hi, Henri:
>>
>> 0) My apologies for mistyping your name. One of our team
>> member's English name is Henry. So, I just automatically typed
>> such to address you.
>
>
> No problem, no worries. It's very common for this to happen since I
> was a child. ;-)
>
>
>>
>> 1) I am glad that you responded, because I did not receive the
>> broadcast copy of my MSG thru LACNOG-Request. I was beginning to
>> wonder whether it was properly transmitted? Since you appear to
>> be replying my MSG in private mode, did you receive a second copy
>> of my previous MSG? Please keep an eye on this one and let me
>> know, as well.
>
>
>
> Your messages are not being sent to the general mailing list, you must
> send them directly to lacnog en lacnic.net . I didn't want to forward
> your comments to the list so as not to commit any privacy issues.
>
>
>>
>> 2) Re: Ur Pt. 1): Many things can be quite deceiving if one
>> is looking at only one angle at a time. For example, do you know
>> Amazon has been hoarding a lot of surplus IPv4 addresses (see URL
>> below)? If you surf around the web about this topic, you will
>> find more similar activities by other big players. Why do US
>> based IPv6 promoters keep on buying IPv4 addresses that are
>> desperately needed by developing regions?
>>
>> https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-has-hoarded-billions-of-dollars-worth-of-ipv4-but-why
>
>
>
> Yes, Amazon has a large stock of IPv4. I commented in a post once
> about this problem or a centralizing strategy. They continue to buy
> IPv4 because it's an ever-growing market. Money issue. See
> https://ipv4.global/blog/july-2021-ipv4-auction-sales-report/
>
>
>>
>> 3) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Again, we need to look at an issue from
>> multiple perspectives. For example, the starting point is why was
>> IPv6 designed without backward compatibility to IPv4? I came
>> through the traditional communications industries where such
>> consideration was the first rule that a planner must follow, no
>> ifs nor buts. As a result, telephone subscribers never knew when
>> a Telco was upgrading the equipment, except when one makes a
>> phone call around midnight and such activities happened to be
>> scheduled.
>
>
> Excellent question. We should ask Sir Vin Cerf :-))). Recently in an
> interview, he admitted several mistakes from the past with IPv4 such
> as encryption and a small addressing field at the time.
>
>
> https://prensa.lacnic.net/news/eventos-es/vint-cerf-factores-de-exito-de-internet-y-los-desafios-para-los-proximos-50-anos
>
>>
>> 4) Next, do you know that CG-NAT was developed to support web
>> search, video streaming, gaming, etc. that demand high volume and
>> fast response? Who are behind these? In essence, these high
>> performance services pushed the need for server-client model with
>> data-centers distributed to be close to high usage regions. Since
>> these operators do not see any harm from IPv4 based CG-NAT, why
>> should they abandon their investment to go IPv6?
>
>
> In my opinion, thinking that there is no harm in CGNAT in IPv4 is
> thought towards destruction. I would not accept or hire an ISP that
> offered me an old and outdated protocol. I would change ISP. That's
> what I say to everyone, including my students. In addition to the
> eternal IPv4 blocks when we talk about online games (PSN) when using
> CGNAT. Changing an ISP's mindset is difficult and pointing out the
> wrong investment he is making too. Rapid host identification in case
> of an audit or police investigation. Many advantages.
>
>
>>
>> 5) Since English is already my second language, I could not
>> read the beginning part of your original MSG which I believed to
>> be in Spanish, but only responded to the second part. I now
>> realize that you were referring to a fresh article on theRegister
>> that I had already read the APNIC blog that it cited. Allow me to
>> make a disclaimer so that our discussion will be meaningful and
>> transparent. That is
>
>> A. I lead a team that has done further work along the vein
>> of the over thirteen years old IETF Draft by APNIC mentioned by
>> their current blog. You will find our latest IETF Draft at:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
>>
>> B. Also, our work has been granted US Pat. No. 11,159,425.
>
>
> I am Brazilian and I speak little English and Spanish. I didn't know
> about this draft. Thanks for sharing and I will read with great care
> and attention. Excellent work and congratulations on the patent
> acquired. Sorry for the question, is it worth investing in any study
> or change in IPv4, a protocol that is no longer standard?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> During the above study, we navigated through a lot of
>> uncharted territories and waters to formulate our solution. So,
>> please pardon my analyses and opinions that may not conform to
>> current general views.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> Different points of view are important and I appreciate that very
> much. Thanks for sharing.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Henri.
>
>
>
>>
>> Abe (2022-01-21 23:11 EST)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022-01-21 14:54, Henri Alves de Godoy wrote:
>>> Hi Abraham, thanks for replying and for the comments.
>>>
>>> 1) Yes, the interview really does not classify into
>>> sub-categories. We know that the biggest ones like Google, AWS,
>>> Facebook, already have ipv6-only datacenter.
>>>
>>> 2) Yes, let's say that since the ISP made an investment with
>>> CGNAT that in my opinion made a "wrong decision", it is clear
>>> that he will want to protect. But the adoption of IPv6 goes
>>> beyond a simple new protocol. Its adoption is strategic for its
>>> survival as well. Currently delivering CGNAT with IPv6 (dual
>>> stak) is the most common approach. Investing in IPv4 and buying
>>> more IPv4 address blocks has no future.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Henri.
>>>
>>> Em sex., 21 de jan. de 2022 às 12:29, Abraham Y. Chen
>>> <aychen en avinta.com> escreveu:
>>>
>>> Hi, Henri:
>>>
>>> 1) Perhaps if you could make a distinction between who are
>>> behind the IPv6 and who are behind the IPv4 CG-NAT, the
>>> subject will become clearer. That is, they are both Big, but
>>> in separate sub-categories of Tech companies.
>>>
>>> 2) There is nothing wrong about protecting the investment
>>> for the sake of at least including the consumer. Pushing new
>>> technology from the perspective of the innovator is
>>> narrow-minded.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Abe (2022-01-21 10:29 EST)
>>>
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:24:22 -0300
>>>> From: Henri Alves de Godoy<henri.godoy en fca.unicamp.br> <mailto:henri.godoy en fca.unicamp.br>
>>>> To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
>>>> <lacnog en lacnic.net> <mailto:lacnog en lacnic.net>
>>>> Subject: [lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back
>>>> internet innovation
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CALRKgT49U50hRii8mhNcFpP+mHEVpm0R=tX4a+3Vs+afXu5H0Q en mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CALRKgT49U50hRii8mhNcFpP+mHEVpm0R=tX4a+3Vs+afXu5H0Q en mail.gmail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> Buenos dias !
>>>>
>>>> Compartilhando a entrevista sobre preocupações sobre a adoção do IPv6
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/20/ipv4_nats_slow_ipv6_transition/
>>>>
>>>> Chamam a atenção os destaques:
>>>>
>>>> "Carriers and Big Tech are happily continuing to use network address
>>>> translation (NAT) and IPv4 to protect their investments......."
>>>>
>>>> "We are witnessing an industry that is no longer using technical
>>>> innovation, openness, and diversification as its primary means of
>>>> propulsion"
>>>>
>>>> Saludos a todos !
>>> --
>>>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20220122/f9dbd5f1/attachment-0001.htm>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG