<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="4">Hi, Fernando:</font></p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">1) I am glad that you like the Unicast
Extension Project. Our effort is along the same line of
thinking, but one step further toward the practice by presenting
a specific application example.</font></p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">2) EzIP starts from utilizing the 240/4
netblock as the fourth reusable private network address pool. As
such, each RAN (Regional Area Network) implementing the EzIP
scheme will be entirely isolated from the existing Internet
proper by an RG (Residential Gateway) via the demarcation
concept. That is, an RAN is free of the influence from the
Internet, if so chosen, as long as the IP packets between the
two conform to applicable internet protocols. In other words, an
RAN is an overlay network tethered from the existing Internet
core via one IPv4 public address as the umbilical cord. An RAN
is able to provide all desired contemporary Internet services
utilizing desired technologies, while avoiding the baggage in
the existing Internet operation.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">3) On the other hand, since the 240/4 address
pool is much bigger than the conventional three private
netblocks combined, an RAN can serve IoTs of a population up to
around 39M, even before making use of any of the conventional
three netblocks. In terms of geographical coverage, this turns
out to be able to cover the largest city of the world, the Tokyo
Metro, which is bigger than any of the 75% smaller countries
worldwide. Since the current Internet equipment either ignores
or drops 240/4 addressed IP packets, an RAN can be deployed with
its own routers (called SPR - Semi-Public Router) and then grows
on its own pace anywhere, without the fear of the interference
with the existing Internet in either direction. Of course, any
existing equipment wishing to participate in the EzIP scheme (by
disabling the program code that has been disabling the use of
the 240/4 netblock) will speed up the global deployment process.
<br>
</font> </p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">4) A quick rule-of-the-thumb calculation shows
that fewer than one thousand IPv4 public addresses will be more
than suffice for this addressing system. (For the reference,
each of the two most populous countries, China 1.5B and India
1.4B, only needs at most six IPv4 public addresses for
implementing this scheme.) This frees up significant number of
IPv4 addresses.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">5) In summary, EzIP deployment can not only
explicitly identify every premises (or, even individuals) on the
internet for providing improved operations, but also free up
IPv4 addresses, leading to other potential benefits as
mentioned by related EzIP documents.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">I look forward to your thoughts.</font></p>
<p><font size="4"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Regards,</font></p>
<p><font size="4"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Abe (2022-03-13 17:32 EDT)</font></p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.1847.1647073958.176218.lacnog@lacnic.net">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----------------------------------------------------------------------
Resumen de LACNOG, Vol 171, Envío 9
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 05:32:28 -0300
From: Fernando Frediani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:lacnog@lacnic.net">lacnog@lacnic.net</a>
Subject: Re: [lacnog] Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re:
202203112350.AYC
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:f41732ad-d63e-d4b5-612b-1e8f0aa8bf54@gmail.com"><f41732ad-d63e-d4b5-612b-1e8f0aa8bf54@gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
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
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt">https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt</a>)
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>