[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