Fwd: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211220729.AYC
Dear Tom: Please disregard an earlier partial transmission of this MSG, caused by operator error. *** 1) One look at the NANOG archive that you retrieved tells me that we are the victims of the idiosyncrasies of the eMail system. Unlike snail mails that are slow but reliable (There was a story that USPS found a forty years old letter stuck in one of the mail collection boxes on Boston sidewalk and then delivered it.), eMails are fast (Once my eMail monitoring account started to receive a long message that I was sending out, even before it was fully sent.) but unpredictable from time to time. Unfortunately, most of us are conditioned with its daily behavior and do not suspect the electronic system hiccups (As Andrew Grove once said, "It is the software, not the hardware."). To deal with this kind of issues in none-real-time communications, I practice a discipline, started from VM and FAX, that I will do my best to respond within 24 hours. I encourage my colleagues to start reminding me (either repeat the MSG or using alternative channels, such as SkyPe - My handle is "Abraham.Y.Chen"), if they do not hear from me after 48 hours on topics that they expect my response. This convention prevented much of the disruptions. Looking at your comments, I definitely would have responded back then if I saw them. One possibility is that I was in the midst of being overwhelmed by NANOG posting protocols, such as the digest mode, uni-code, personal writing styles, etc. and miseed your MSG. Anyway, allow me to try carrying on. 2) "...Your proposal appears to rely on a specific value in the IP option header to create your overlay": Not really, as soon as the 100.64/10 netblock is replaced by the 240/4, each CG-NAT module can serve a very large area (such as Tokyo Metro and such) that becomes the RAN in EzIP terminology. Since each RAN is tethered from the existing Internet core by an umbilical cord operating on one IPv4 public address, this is like a kite floating in the sky which is the basic building block for the overlaying EzIP Sub-Internet when they expand wide enough to begin covering significant areas of the world. Note that throughout this entire process, the Option Word mechanism in the IP header does not need be used at all. (It turns out that utilizing the CG-NAT configuration as the EzIP deployment vehicle, the only time that the Option Word may be used is when subscribers in two separate RANs wishing to have end-to-end communication, such as direct private eMail exchanges.) 3) " ... to drop any packet with an IP option set that you don't explicitly want because a significant number of routers kick every packet with options to CPU, ... ": Yes, this was what we were reminded of when we started our study. However, this appears to be another Internet myth. Dr. Chimiak of the EnIP project (see EzIP Draft's Refernce 13) told me that his team had successfully sent packets with Option Words. Again, even if the existing routers do knock out packs with Option words, the overlay architecture of the RANs allows the search for those do allow this operation. Since the use of the Option Word turns out to be an option to superceed IPv4's capabilities, we should treat it as a consideration for future premium services. 4) " ...Any device that still treated 240/4 differently would need to be updated to treat it like anything else. .. ": Yes, this applies to regions that desire to enjoy the EzIP characteristics. Since the root of each RAN (or sub-RAN) still appears to be one of the current CG-NAT modules, there is no change can be detected by other CG-NAT modules. This avoids interoperability issues during the incremental deployment. 5) " ...Any existing filters that dropped packets with *any* IP option set would have to be modified to permit the ones you define for EzIP": Since EzIP is not going to activate Option Words initially for enhancing the CG-NAT, this should not be a concern. In the future, inter-RAN communication by subscribers would use Option words. But, by that time, finite number of backbone / gateway routers among RANs capable of preserving Option Words would have been identified. This approach takes advantage of the hierarchical network configuration that CG-NAT has already been practicing implicitly. 6) "... ( At one point in the past, one big router vendor only allowed you to configure an ip-options filter based on the IANA defined values, not others. ) ...": Well, you are talking about the overly intertwined relationship between one big roouter vendor and the IANA which is sponsored by the former. So, this is not a technical but a "busniess" issue. We have talked with "white box" vendors. One assured us that EzIP can be quickly activated in thier programs if customers do ask for it. 7) "... This is a LOT of work and time for an overlay. ...": You are probably visualizing a complete overlay network right from the
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211220729.AYC
Dear Tom: 1) One look at the NANOG archive that you retrieved tells me that we are the victims of the idiosyncrasies of the eMail system. Unlike the snail mails are slow but reliable (There was a story that USPS found a forty years old letter stuck in one of the mail collection boxes on Boston sidewalk and then delivered it.), eMails are fast (Once my eMail monitoring account started to receive a long message that I was sending out, even before it was fully sent.) but unpredictable from time to time. Unfortunately, most of us are conditioned with the normal speed and do not suspect the electronic system hiccups (As Andrew Grove once said, "It is the software, not the hardware.). To deal with this kind of issues in none-real time communication, I practice a discipline started from VM and FAX that I will respond within 24 hours. I encourage colleagues to start reminding me (either repeat the MSG or using alternative channels, such as SkyPe - My handle is A"Abraham.Y.Chen"), if they do not hear from me on topics expecting responses after 48 hours. This convention prevented much of the disruptions. Looking at your comments, I definitely would have responded back then if I saw it. One possibility is that I was in the middle of trying to get used to NANOG posting protocols. I was probably overwhelmed by the digest mode, uni-code,etc. issues. Anyway, allow me to try carry on. 2) "...Your proposal appears to rely on a specific value in the IP option header to create your overlay": Not really, as soon as the 100.64/10 netblock is replaced by the 240/4, each CG-NAT module can serve a very large area (such as Tokyo Metro and such) that becomes the RAN in EzIP terminology. Each RAN is tethered from the existing Internet core by an umbilical core based on one IPv4 public address. This is like a kite floating in the sky which is basic building block of the overlaying Sub-Internet when they expand to cover the entire world. Throughout this entire process, the Option Word mechanism in the IP head doe not need be used at all. (It turns out that utilizing the CG-NAT configuration as the starting point, the only time that the Option Word may be used is when subscribers in two separate RANs wishing to have end-to-end communication, such as direct private eMail exchanges. On 2022-11-21 18:46, Tom Beecher wrote: 1) As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully. I will start by citing one of my own responses to you : https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2022-March/218291.html I do not leave a loose end to any technical discussion with substance. With the utmost amount of respect, you do. Many people on this list have provided specific , technical issues with your proposal. Others have commented on non-technical, but practical considerations. In all cases, you have simply handwaved them away or not commented on them further. On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Dear Tom: 1) As requested, please be specific and speak only for yourself. So that we can carry on a professional dialog meaningfully. 2) Hint: I signed up to NANOG.org only early this year. So, whatever you have in mind might be from somewhere else. In addition, even though I do not have good memory, I do not leave a loose end to any technical discussion with substance. The revisions of the EzIP documentation have always been improving the presentation style for easing the reader's efforts, not about modifying our basic scheme. So, you need to be clear about the topics that you are referring to. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-11-21 17:16 EST) On 2022-11-21 13:23, Tom Beecher wrote: > > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...": Please give a couple > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that colleagues > on this forum can understand. > > > Myself and multiple others provided specific technical rebuttals to > the proposal in the past on this list. > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:29 PM Abraham Y. Chen > wrote: > > Dear Tom: > > 1) "... for various technical reasons , ...": Please give a couple > examples, and be specific preferably using expressions that > colleagues > on this forum can understand. > > Thanks, > > > Abe (2022-11-21 12:29 EST) > > > > > On 2022-11-21 10:44, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > > 1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of > alternatives. ...": > > Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a > look > > at the > > below IETF Draft: > > > > >
