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

[Tomas Lynch]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:25 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen en avinta.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
No, the question is if we need 204/4 or not. My opinion is no for the
motives I explained in other emails.


>
> 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.
>
I'm just answering your statement that says "Although this is not without
efforts, it would be finite compared to the IPv6 deployment...". Looks like
your personal preference is that deploying IPv6 requires too much of an
effort, mine is the opposite. But let's keep it on 204/4.


> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-03-16 23:25)
>

Would you please please receive all the list emails instead of the digest
so it's easier to follow the thread? Answering on the daily summary is not
effective to follow your answers. Thanks.



>
>
>
> 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> <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_-7466899796481095408_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/20220317/3fc379b6/attachment-0001.htm>