I could NOT agree more. Even tho, I am IPv6 phobic, let IPv4 go away.
At least, make it go away from mainstream commercial Internet.
90% users do NOT care about it. They want to browse web, watch movies
or play games. They can do it using IPv6.
I cant wait :) more IPv4 address space for people like me and our projects.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
To: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
Cc: "Chen, Abraham Y." <ayc...@alum.mit.edu>, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:22 -0800
Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you
attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the simple
fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues to get
worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and tragically does
nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more disaster on top of
the existing mess).
The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for
better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven
technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of internet
traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow.
You simply can˙˙t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its life
merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure before it
is finally retired.
Owen
On Jan 12, 2024, at 03:46, Abraham Y. Chen
<ayc...@avinta.com> wrote:
˙˙ Hi, Ryan:
1) " ... Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement
IPv6. ":
What is your selling point?
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-12 06:44)
2024-01-11 12:39, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Abraham,
You're arguing semantics instead of the actual
point. Residential customers want Internet access, not
intranet access. Again, VRFs are plentiful and so are CG-NAT
firewall appliances or servers to run those VMs.
Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement IPv6.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech....@nanog.org> on
behalf of Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
To: Michael Butler <i...@protected-networks.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious.
Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi, Michael:
1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A
to B in a private setting, using them might also be .. a
challenge. ... ":
EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional
Area Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable,
according to the conventional Internet definition. This is
actually the same as how 100.64/10 is used within CG-NAT.
2) However, this might be where the confusion comes from.
With the geographical area coverage so much bigger, an RAN is
effectively a public network. To mesh the two for
consistency, we defined everything related to 240/4 as
"Semi-Public" to distinguish this new layer of networking
facility from the current public / private separation. That
is, the CG-NAT routers will become SPRs (Semi-Public Routers)
in EzIP's RAN, once the 240/4 is deployed.
Hope this helps,
Abe (2024-01-11 12:21)
On 2024-01-10 10:45, Michael Butler via NANOG wrote:
On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
Karim-
Please be cautious about this advice,
and understand the full context.
240/4 is still classified as RESERVED
space. While you would certainly be
able to use it on internal networks
if your equipment supports it, you
cannot use it as publicly routable
space. There have been many proposals
over the years to reclassify 240/4,
but that has not happened, and is
unlikely to at any point in the
foreseeable future.
While you may be able to get packets from point A
to B in a private setting, using them might also
be .. a challenge.
There's a whole bunch of software out there that
makes certain assumptions about allowable ranges.
That is, they've been compiled with a header that
defines ..
#define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) &
0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
Michael
[icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
Virus-free.www.avast.com
