[lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back internet innovation Re: 202201221137.AYC
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani en gmail.com
Lun Ene 24 11:57:35 -03 2022
Em 24/01/2022 10:49, Henri Alves de Godoy escreveu:
> <clip>
>
> About your question "The key questions at the moment would be; Is
> there anything that only IPv6 can do?"
Yes there are several like:
- Avoid any type of NAT and CGNAT which imposes a significant cost to
Broadband ISPs for Capex and Open costs
- Improve end-user experience not having to force them to go via a
bottlenecked CGNAT equipment.
- Move Internet forward by restoring end to end communication as it
should be, etc
Fernando
>
>
> 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 !
>>>> --
>>>>
>>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion:https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20220124/8058259c/attachment-0001.htm>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG