[lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back internet innovation Re: 202201221433.AYC
Abraham Y. Chen
aychen en avinta.com
Lun Ene 24 16:48:12 -03 2022
Hi, Henri:
1) Re: Ur. Pts. 1) & 2): Allow me to speculate that the intention
is a bit more convoluted than you can imagine.
2) Re: Ur. Pts. 3) & 4): Yes, I should wait for you to have a
chance to review the EzIP documents.
3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6) "This draft of the block 240/4 release I will
have to change all my class slides ... ": I hope our work as a
"back to the future" event is realistic, not just for superficial fun.
Await for your critiques after you have a chance to review our work in
more depth.
Regards,
Abe (2022-01-24 14:46 EST)
On 2022-01-24 08:49, Henri Alves de Godoy wrote:
> 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> <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>
>
>
>
> --
>
--
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/20220124/2078e049/attachment-0001.htm>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG