Hi, Eduard:

0)    Appreciate very much for you spending the time to read all 55 pages of our draft and then offering your extensive thoughts.

1)    "....Your first pages are oriented for low-level engineers (“for dummies”).  ...  ": Thanks. I believe that the Abstract, Introduction, etc. at the beginning of a document are intended for "dummies" and those busy high level executives to get a quick overview. Unless, the descriptions are sugar coated to mislead the reader. In general, however, I do admit that we have not done a good job of describing the EzIP solution from the perspectives of colleagues who are used to the current "Internet way". This is because we approached the topic from an outsider's viewpoint, and there are more than a few parameters behind the EzIP scheme that do not follow the current approaches, but the alternatives which could be regarded as opposing techniques. We will need to highlight these to alert the readers of the distinction. If you could treat the EzIP scheme as unorthodox, but patiently review it with a pair of  critical eyes, I believe that you will see that the below explanations are realistic.

2)    " ... To give the chance for the merge that may be needed for a business. Minimize probability for address duplication inside 240/4 block (that everybody would use). ...how to coordinate one 240/4 distribution between all subscribers. Because address space between Carrier and Subscriber are Private too.  ":    The implied EzIP address management is by one administrative body per 240/4 netblock with considerations such as static, geolocation and hierarchical. Thus, there will not be issues when businesses merge. This implies that the 240/4 should be respected as "*/natural resources/*", instead of the current treatment of being "*/personal properties/*", actually "*/business property/*".  --- This is analogous to how PSTN numbers were handled in the old days.

3)    "... You have not discussed in the document CGNAT case that is typically called NAT444 (double NAT translation). ... ":    If I understand NAT444 properly, it is a network architecture going from RG-NAT (Residential / Routing Gateway NAT) at one  end of a link through CG-NAT (Carrier Grade NAT) in the middle before reaching the public Internet network. What EzIP proposes to do is to replace the CG-NAT with a basic router. This can be achieved by simply assigning a 240/4 address permanently to each subscriber premises that currently makes use of a dynamic port number, without affecting the hardware equipment nor the networking architecture. For software implementation, enabling the use of 240/4 netblock is all what is needed. At least, we have identified a simple case for the inspiration. And, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension" project has found numerous equipment already supporting 240/4.

4)    " ... I do not see a big difference between EzIP and NAPT that we have right now.   ...   ":    Precisely! Please see Pt. 3) above. Simply put, EzIP is a numbering plan upgrade for CG-NAT.

5)    " ... Initially, the majority of servers on the internet would not be capable to read Ez options (private 240/4 address extension). ...  ":    Correct. But, this is only needed when we extend EzIP service to include the true end-to-end connectivity between any two premises around the world like the IDDD (International Direct Distance Dialing) of the PSTN. The initial EzIP deployment is only RAN that upgrades the CG-NAT modules in a coordinated process (see Pt. 2) above). Even so, it can be done progressively by individual routers within a CG-NAT operation. That is, enable the root level routers to be able to handle 240/4 addressed packets for simple routing. Then, enable the next level routers to do the same. These are just standby capabilities until each of the lowest level (the subscriber premises) routers (the RGs) is assigned with a static 240/4 address. At that point, the NAT functions in the CG-NAT routers can be retired to standby status. This RAN architecture will last a pretty long time because the Internet is currently predominantly operated in Master/Slave mode by CDNs that are doing well with their Sever/Client model. By the time the end-to-end connectivity between different RANs is needed, either the RANs can designate some of their own routers (the SPRs) for such interconnect function, or certain existing Internet routers have been enabled to handle the Option Words.

6    " ....The gateway (that would be exposing 240/4 options) would need additionally to translate UDP ports to avoid a collision (as usual for NAPT). The gateway could not stop NAPT till the last server on the internet would be capable to read address extension (240/4) in options  ....   ":    The gateway of a RAN cluster (we call it a Sub-Internet) or a CDN module is not expected to make any changes from today's configuration for packet transmission between it and the Internet. For the CDN operation, the gateway has already been performing the address translation between unrelated IP address blocks as a two-port device. For packets going through it, it will continue to perform its NAT function. There is no reason to announce to the world that its internal addresses have been updated to 240/4.

7)    "... IMHI: it would be a very dirty work-around if servers would need to teach their capabilities to every NAPT device.   ... ":        Based on the above description, I hope you will change your conclusion.

I look forward to your further thoughts.


Regards,




Abe (2022-04-04 12:13 EDT)




On 2022-04-04 06:32, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:

Hi Abraham,

I propose you improve EzIP by the advice in the draft on the way how to randomize small sites choice inside 240/4 (like in ULA?).

To give the chance for the merge that may be needed for a business. Minimize probability for address duplication inside 240/4 block (that everybody would use).

You have not discussed in the document CGNAT case that is typically called NAT444 (double NAT translation).

I assume it is possible, but would be a big question how to coordinate one 240/4 distribution between all subscribers. Because address space between Carrier and Subscriber are Private too.

I do not see a big difference between EzIP and NAPT that we have right now. Explanation:

Initially, the majority of servers on the internet would not be capable to read Ez options (private 240/4 address extension).

Hence, the Web server would see just UDP:Public_IP.

The gateway (that would be exposing 240/4 options) would need additionally to translate UDP ports to avoid a collision (as usual for NAPT).

The gateway could not stop NAPT till the last server on the internet would be capable to read address extension (240/4) in options, because the gateway would not know what server is capable to parse EzIP options.

It means NEVER, at least not in this century. Hence, the additional value from EzIP is small, because the primary job would be still done by NAPT.

You could try to patch this problem. If the new server would signal to the gateway that it is capable to understand EzIP options then overlapping UDP ports from the same Public IP address would be not a problem, because the server may additionally use private address space for traffic multiplexing.

IMHI: it would be a very dirty work-around if servers would need to teach their capabilities to every NAPT device.

Sorry, I have not read all 55 pages, but the principal architecture questions are not possible to understand from the first 9 pages.

Your first pages are oriented for low-level engineers (“for dummies”).

Eduard

*From:*NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
*To:* Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com>; Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Matt:

1)    The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of the benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced to this mailing list about one month ago. That discussion has gyrated into this thread more concerned about IPv6 related topics, instead. If you missed that introduction, please have a look at the following IETF draft to get a feel of what could be done:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space

2)   With respect to the specific case you brought up, consider the EzIP address pool (240/4 netblock with about 256M addresses) as the replacement to that of CG-NAT (100.64/10 netblock with about 4M addresses). This much bigger (2^6 times) pool enables every customer premises to get a static IP address from the 240/4 pool to operate in simple router mode, instead of requesting for a static port number and still operates in NAT mode. Within each customer premises, the conventional three private netblocks may be used to handle the hosts (IoTs).

3) There is a whitepaper that presents an overview of other possibilities based on EzIP approach:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf

Hope the above makes sense to you.

Regards,

Abe (2022-04-02 23:10)

On 2022-04-02 16:25, Matthew Petach wrote:

    On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:37 AM Masataka Ohta
    <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:


        If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each
        private address has a statically configured range of
        public port numbers, it is extremely easy because no
        logging is necessary for police grade audit trail
        opacity.

            Masataka Ohta

    Hi Masataka,

    One quick question.  If every host is granted a range of public port

    numbers on the static stateful NAT device, what happens when

    two customers need access to the same port number?

    Because there's no way in a DNS NS entry to specify a

    port number, if I need to run a DNS server behind this

    static NAT, I *have* to be given port 53 in my range;

    there's no other way to make DNS work.  This means

    that if I have two customers that each need to run a

    DNS server, I have to put them on separate static

    NAT boxes--because they can't both get access to

    port 53.

    This limits the effectiveness of a stateful static NAT

    box to the number of customers that need hard-wired

    port numbers to be mapped through; which, depending

    on your customer base, could end up being all of them,

    at which point you're back to square one, with every

    customer needing at least 1 IPv4 address dedicated

    to them on the NAT device.

    Either that, or you simply tell your customers "so sorry

    you didn't get on the Internet soon enough; you're all

    second class citizens that can't run your own servers;

    if you need to do that, you can go pay Amazon to host

    your server needs."

    And perhaps that's not as unreasonable as it first sounds;

    we may all start running IPv4-IPv6 application gateways

    on Amazon, so that IPv6-only networks can still interact

    with the IPv4-only internet, and Amazon will be the great

    glue that holds it all together.

    tl;dr -- "if only we'd thought of putting a port number field

    in the NS records in DNS back in 1983..."

    Matt

<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>



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Reply via email to