[lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203112350.AYC

Sab Mar 12 05:32:28 -03 2022

Hello

I do not and never accepted the easy justification that working towards 
making any usage of a huge amount of wasted IPv4 addresses due to an 
historical mistake from some network vendor is something that would 
compete with IPv6 deployment. Both things can work in parallel without 
prejudice to each other.

However I think the best proposal I have seen was the one put but Seth 
and his partners 
(https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt) 
and even though these addresses may not be used globally they will have 
usage that can help making this transition smoother as it is not 
reasonable to think we will turn the key to IPv6 in the next few years 
for more effort and dedication we put into it.

Fernando

On 12/03/2022 04:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ vía LACNOG wrote:
>
> Personally, I don’t think it is worth and I’m not going to invest more 
> time in discussing this, just a short note for others to consider:
>
> The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test 
> that everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and 
> gained time, it is much best invested in continue the IPv6 deployment 
> which is already going on in LAC and the rest of the world.
>
> It would not make sense, for a region like LAC to trow away all the 
> efforts that have been already done with IPv6 and we should avoid 
> confusing people.
>
> IPv6 is the only viable long-term solution, and this is the reason why 
> what you are proposing and similar approaches have been rejected 
> several times by IETF.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 12/3/22 5:56, "LACNOG en nombre de Abraham Y. Chen" 
> <lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net en nombre de aychen en avinta.com> escribió:
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> 0) I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited 
> our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy 
> IPv4). (Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the discussion 
> and the highlighted text where the citation was made.)
>
> 1) As the lead investigator of the EzIP Project, I would like to  
> formally introduce our solution by bringing your attention to an 
> overview whitepaper:
>
> English: https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
>
> Spanish: https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet_ES.pdf
>
> Portuguese: https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet_PT.pdf
>
> In a nutshell, EzIP proposes:
>
> A.    Disable the program codes in current routers that have been 
> disabling the use of the 240/4 NetBlock. The cost of this software 
> engineering should be minimal.
>
> B.    The EzIP deployment architecture is the same as that of the 
> existing CG-NAT (Carrier Grade Network Address Translation). 
> Consequently, there is no need to modify any hardware equipment.
>
> There is an online setup description called RAN (Regional Area 
> Network), (Reference II), that demonstrates the feasibility of this 
> approach.
>
> 2)    There are additional consequential benefits by deploying EzIP, 
> such as those mentioned by our comment to Reference III in the above 
> whitepaper.
>
> I look forward to addressing your thoughts.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Abe (2022-03-08 09:22 EST)
> VP Engineering
> Avinta Communications, Inc.
> Milpitas, CA 95035 USA
> +1(408)942-1485
> Skype: Abraham.Y.Chen
> eMail: AYChen en Avinta.com
> WebSite: www.Avinta.com <http://www.Avinta.com>
>
> *****************
>
> https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008895.html
>
>
>   [lacnog] Draft: Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
>
> *Leandro Bertholdo* berthold en penta.ufrgs.br 
> <mailto:lacnog%40lacnic.net?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Blacnog%5D%20Draft%3A%20Unicast%20Use%20of%20the%20Formerly%20Reserved%20127/8&In-Reply-To=%3C86B6BC4D-1D2B-406A-978B-09F459FBD585%40penta.ufrgs.br%3E>
> /Lun Nov 29 07:15:28 -03 2021/
>
> ·Mensaje anterior: [lacnog] Draft: Unicast Use of the Formerly 
> Reserved 127/8 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008894.html>
>
> ·Próximo mensaje: [lacnog] Draft: Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 
> 127/8 <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008888.html>
>
> ·*Mensajes ordenados por:* [ fecha ] 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/date.html#8895> 
> [ hilo ] 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/thread.html#8895> 
> [ asunto ] 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/subject.html#8895> 
> [ autor ] 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/author.html#8895>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Oi Fernando,
> O que eu quero dizer é que problema é independente de ser endereçamento global ou não.
> Esses blocos são simplesmente considerados violações de uso na maioria dos softwares,
> sistemas operacionais e implementações dos protocolos.
> Ou seja, qualquer coisa no sentido de usa-los precisa de todo aquele trabalho.
> Eu simplesmente não consigo ver como chegar-se a qualquer meio termo nesse sentido - todo
> mundo que produz equipamentos de rede vai ter que revisar o código.
> Se considerarmos que,  o uso como endereçamento global é o máximo ganho possível,
> e ainda assim não vale o esforço, qualquer outro uso não fará sentido.
> De 2007 a  2009 se conversou sobre o reuso. Note que a primeira proposta foi para uso
> privado, que depois evoluiu para simplesmente tornar esses endereços válidos:
> * August 3, 2007 - Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00
> * March 2, 2008 - Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address space
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-00
> * September 13, 2008 - Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address space
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-01
>                       
> Passaram-se mais de 10 anos e nem isso foi adiante. Esses IPs ainda sao considerados
> invalidos pelas RFCs correntes.
> Linux responde como argumento invalido
> Routers também…
> Apple também
> Resumindo, os equipamentos atuais não tem suporte. Se os sistemas operacionais e routers fossem atualizados
> os provedores de acesso deveriam realizar upgrade em *TODOS* os equipamentos, e eventualmente algum equipamento
> legado teria que ser substituído, assim como foi para suportar IPv6.
> O que eu quero dizer no final das contas é que estamos revisitando um problema que muita gente já estudou e avaliou.
> Essa proposta não foi descartada de imediato. Muita gente já gastou muito tempo achar uma saída por esse caminho...
> Acredito que será difícil você encontrar suporte para qualquer proposta nesse sentido 15 anos depois.
> Outro ponto é a demanda (ou falta dela) que o Rubens citou. Até hoje não ouvi nenhuma operadora reclamando
> de falta de endereçamento privado que elas não achassem uma saída.
> A solução que várias operadoras tem usado para liberar os IPs de backbone é por colocar toda a rede com
> endereçamento IPv6 e transportar IPv4 sobre IPv6 (normalmente MPLS).
> Ou seja, existem soluções viáveis que não dependem de nenhuma nova RFC.
> A proposta do Chen, Adaptive IPv4 Address Space 
> (draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space-09.txt)  sugere usodo 240/4 para IoT.
> Mas desenvolver um novo protocolo com foco em IoT e restrito a 256M 
> devices  quando se fala em 5 Bilhoes de IoT
> previstos em 2022 nao parece que vai atrair a atenção de muita gente. A ultima atualizacao dessa draft foi em 2021.
> Olhando pra esse histórico todo, acho que a proposta do Schoen (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html)
> (assunto desse email) também não vá adiante. Propor alterar a máscara de interface de Loopback em todos
> os equipamento que falam IP para resgatar menos de um /8. Não creio que será bem aceita!
> Legal a discussão Fernando, me serviu pra dar uma atualizada em como anda esse assunto… ;-)
> Abraço a todos.
> Leandro Bertholdo
> >/On 29 Nov 2021, at 04:31, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani en gmail.com 
> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog>> wrote:/
> >//
> >/Olá Leandro/
>
> ***************
>
> <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> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________ LACNOG mailing list 
> LACNOG en lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog 
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220312/c8c35fe1/attachment-0001.htm>