[lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back internet innovation Re: 202201241458.AYC

Abraham Y. Chen aychen en avinta.com
Lun Ene 24 18:28:11 -03 2022


Hi, Fernando:

     If you regard the 240/4 netblock proposed by the below IETF Draft 
as a reusable static address pool (per IPv4 public address) replacement 
to the dynamic 100.64.0.0/10 netblock currently used by CG-NAT, I 
believe that you will arrive at affirmative answers to your questions.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space

Regards,


Abe (2022-01-24 16:23 EST)




On 2022-01-24 09:57, lacnog-request en lacnic.net wrote:
> Envíe los mensajes para la lista LACNOG a
> 	lacnog en lacnic.net
>
> Para subscribirse o anular su subscripción a través de la WEB
> 	https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
> O por correo electrónico, enviando un mensaje con el texto "help" en
> el asunto (subject) o en el cuerpo a:
> 	lacnog-request en lacnic.net
>
> Puede contactar con el responsable de la lista escribiendo a:
> 	lacnog-owner en lacnic.net
>
> Si responde a algún contenido de este mensaje, por favor, edite la
> linea del asunto (subject) para que el texto sea mas especifico que:
> "Re: Contents of LACNOG digest...". Además, por favor, incluya en la
> respuesta sólo aquellas partes del mensaje a las que está
> respondiendo.
>
>
> Asuntos del día:
>
>     1. Re:  Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding back
>        internet innovation Re: 202201221137.AYC (Fernando Frediani)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:57:35 -0300
> From: Fernando Frediani<fhfrediani en gmail.com>
> To:lacnog en lacnic.net
> Subject: Re: [lacnog] Big Tech's use of carrier-grade NAT is holding
> 	back internet innovation Re: 202201221137.AYC
> Message-ID:<2061d88a-6f63-0b0a-af7b-6cecb446dba3 en gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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 tolacnog 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.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Pié de página del digest
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion:lacnog-unsubscribe en lacnic.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Fin de Resumen de LACNOG, Vol 169, Envío 25
> *******************************************



-- 
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/20220124/35d6f79d/attachment-0001.htm>


Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG