[lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back internet innovation Re: 202201221137.AYC

[Henri Alves de Godoy]

Hi, Abe

Follow the comments below .....

Em sáb., 22 de jan. de 2022 às 17:28, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen en avinta.com>
escreveu:

> 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?
>


I haven't noticed a fear or a drop in the purchase or transfer of IPv4 due
to the increase in cost. The movement was the opposite and many companies
are not worrying about cost, they are increasingly buying IPv4, because
that's what they know how to do, add more IPv4 blocks to their CGNAT. It's
easier for them than investing in IPv6. I would say a suicidal move.
Regarding Amazon's appropriation of large IPv4 blocks, I don't know what it
will do, it's a gold mine and maybe the right thing would be to return the
region. :-)) But I don't see any indication that it will do that.



>
> 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.
>

Abe, I don't have information and I haven't read about the subject to give
an opinion on EzIP.


>
> 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,
>
>
This draft of the block 240/4 release I will have to change all my class
slides and let all my students know that something historic has changed!
:-))

Leaving the jokes behind, I imagine that these millions of IPv4 addresses
that would be more available do not solve the problem of scarcity. Who
cares about this? Or would it just be to accomplish a historic feat or
correct a past mistake as well? I know that changes and mistakes happen.
Imagine the work of changing software, firmware, acls, firewalls. Is it
worth the effort ?

About your question "The key questions at the moment would be; Is there
anything that only IPv6 can do?"

The question is very good and makes our mind work and heat up.

I would start by answering as being the only protocol so far that can
achieve an assignment to a large amount of equipment (IoT, 5G). In addition
to the equipment and routers, they worked much better and faster in
delivering packages. I would say that we have the opportunity to return and
revive the concept of the early days of the Internet which is its
end-to-end connection.

Regards,



>
> 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> <henri.godoy en fca.unicamp.br>
>>> To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
>>> 	<lacnog en lacnic.net> <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> <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 !
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_3421560110126232370_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>


--
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20220124/67065b96/attachment-0001.htm>