[lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203132336.AYC

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Hi, Fernando:

1)    " ... upgrade every major legacy router in the world. ...  ":    
Perhaps you did not recognize that the EzIP approach starts from 
deploying RANs (Regional Area Network) consisting of SPRs (Semi-Public 
Router)? Each RAN is tethered from the Internet core via one IPv4 
address as the umbilical cord. With this architecture, RANs form an 
/*overlay*/ to the existing Internet to provide equivalent services in 
parallel. It will start small and individual locally, then grow bigger 
by interconnecting through compatible RANs. There is no need for 
reprogramming existing Internet routers, although doing so will expedite 
the EzIP deployment. This concept is one step beyond just making use of 
240/4 netblock as another unicast IPv4 address pool. So, the 
consequences are quite different. Hope this clarifies the issue.

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-13 23:57 EDT)

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Resumen de LACNOG, Vol 171, Envío 12
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:06:48 -0300
> From: Fernando Frediani<fhfrediani en gmail.com>
> To:lacnog en lacnic.net
> Subject: Re: [lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re:
> 	202203112350.AYC
> Message-ID:<2afb05d6-5fe0-0d73-f70e-a2dd231c67ab en gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> I don't think even the authors of any of the proposals really believe
> this type of thing would be possible, upgrade every major legacy router
> in the world. And if 240/4 would make it to a state it can be used it
> could still well be used for example inside a backbone in a regional way
> that allow many organizations to move those more 'noble addresses' to be
> used as Global ones, IXs, Interconections, etc.
> I also don't see if that would happen one day people would just "stop
> deploying IPv6" until the issue of IPv4 exhaustion "comes back again".
> That just doesn't make any sense.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 12/03/2022 13:41, Jorge Villa vía LACNOG wrote:
>> 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
>>


-- 
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/20220313/616d08d0/attachment.htm>