[lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re 202203132150.AYC

[Tomas Lynch]

If you are in operations everything is a burden. I'd rather spend my time
deploying IPv6 than upgrading code in routers.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 11:14 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen en avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Tomas:
> 1)    "  ... 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. ...
> the cost of the so-called EzIP is not minimal.":    Perhaps you did not
> recognize three characteristics of the EzIP scheme in this respect:
>
>     A.    It is an incremental enhancement (more addresses become usable).
> It does not require end-user upgrade. So, it does not interfere existing
> operations,
>
>     B.    It is localized within a RAN (Regional Area Network), or a
> partial branch of such, and generally deploys down-stream. So, it should be
> within one Network Operator's sole jurisdiction,
>     C.    It is a "generic" type of software upgrade. That is, all
> equipment from manufacturers using the same root software block are likely
> making the same code change.
>
>     As such, the software update for EzIP operation may be done as part of periodical
> debugging type of down-loads, not extra burden on operator's staff. Then,
> the added capability can be idle in the updated equipment until down stream
> facility is ready to take advantage of the expanded capability. From my
> knowledge of equipment maintenance, this is no big deal. Although this is
> not without efforts, it would be finite compared to the IPv6 deployment
> that requires wide spread compatibility through the Internet (cooperation
> of both ends of a link), before the roll-out of the capability is
> feasible.
>
> Hope this clarifies your concern.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-03 13 23:13 EDT)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Resumen de LACNOG, Vol 171, Envío 10
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 10:34:35 -0500
> From: Tomas Lynch <tomas.lynch en gmail.com> <tomas.lynch en gmail.com>
> To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
> 	<lacnog en lacnic.net> <lacnog en lacnic.net>
> Subject: Re: [lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re:
> 	202203112350.AYC
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAGEujU8MwZx7-PzmKHpyOWjDj9gUSRa6aGsOwB_XVEB86yOd6w en mail.gmail.com> <CAGEujU8MwZx7-PzmKHpyOWjDj9gUSRa6aGsOwB_XVEB86yOd6w en mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <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_5374399823432330978_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20220316/65a5d444/attachment.htm>