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

Sab Mar 12 13:41:53 -03 2022

Hi, just adding a few words to the Tomas Lynch comment.

Please, don’t forget that the Internet infrastructure is not only the part created by a few big operators and Tier I or II ISPs. The Internet is really bigger than that. If you make a real-time inventory now, you'll find that there are a lot of working devices on the Internet that have reached their end of support from their respective manufacturers. Of course, those devices won’t be upgraded to scale to the new ExIP but they'll keep up and running. It will be an unwanted situation for the operation and the stability of the Internet infrastructure.

Doing this kind of “fix”, you’ll have to make almost the same effort  (inventory, software patching, hardware upgrade and replace, routing, security, and so on ) that deploying IPv6. Recovering this /4 block might allow a 2-4 years of “peace” but after that we'll be in the same situation of IPv4 exhausting that we have nowadays. Definitely, to adopt ExIP, we’ll have to invest a lot of efforts and money in a temporary solution instead of a definitive solution for the same price (or less, because even when a lot of operators haven’t deployed IPv6 now, they have been acquiring IPv6 capable hardware and software as part of their usual business process). Deploying IPv6 is the definitive answer. 

Regards,

Jorge

De: LACNOG <lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net> en nombre de Tomas Lynch <tomas.lynch en gmail.com>
Responder a: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group <lacnog en lacnic.net>
Fecha: sábado, 12 de marzo de 2022, 10:34 a. m.
Para: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group <lacnog en lacnic.net>
Asunto: Re: [lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203112350.AYC

This part of the proposal doesn't have in mind the operations of a network:

>  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.

Yes, let's say that the cost for Vendor A could be minimal: they will remove some lines in the code for version X.Y and release version X.Y-EzIP without bugs triggered by removing those lines. Then, we, the operators, would have to plan the upgrade of all of our routers, spend days programming the upgrade, spend nights in maintenance windows, maybe pay for remote hands, etc., just to extend for a few more days the inevitable agony of IPv4.

Thus, the cost of the so-called EzIP is not minimal.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:32 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani en gmail.com> wrote:

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 

*****************

    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 
Lun Nov 29 07:15:28 -03 2021 

·         Mensaje anterior: [lacnog] Draft: Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 

·         Próximo mensaje: [lacnog] Draft: Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 

·         Mensajes ordenados por: [ fecha ] [ hilo ] [ asunto ] [ autor ] 

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> wrote:
> 
> Olá Leandro
***************

Virus-free. www.avast.com 
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list
LACNOG en lacnic.net
https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog

_______________________________________________ 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/20220312/7fee49e6/attachment-0001.htm>