[lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re 202203162312.AYC

[Abraham Y. Chen]

Hi, Tomas:

1)    " If you are in operations everything is a burden.   ":  Of 
course, there is no free lunch. The question is, whether the proposed 
work delivers better performance or reduces the current, and perhaps 
including future, burdens?

2)    "    ... I'd rather spend my time deploying IPv6 ... ":    This 
thread of exchanges is about discussing the technical merits of the EzIP 
scheme. It is not conducting a popularity polling of personal 
preferences which can be influenced by too many none-technical parameters.

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-16 23:25)




On 2022-03-16 19:52, Tomas Lynch wrote:
> 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>  <mailto:tomas.lynch en gmail.com>
>>     To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
>>     	<lacnog en lacnic.net>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>
>


-- 
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/20220316/9d5ed646/attachment.htm>