Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been discussed but I'm hoping that this might make a difference. Abraham, Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of NAT box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP internet. That NAT box will

RE: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it > without announcement. This is an assurance that 240/4 would never be permitted for Public Internet. These “multi-national conglo” has enough influence on the IETF to not permit it. Ed/ From: NANOG

Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Ryan Hamel
Abraham, There is no need to run one giant cluster. Many small clusters with VRFs and CG-NAT devices to bridge the gap from the VRF to the Internet and keep the blast radius small, are enough. A CG-NAT ISP should not need to work so hard to provide a unique enough CG-NAT IP address, as long as

RE: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Tony Wicks
2)"... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable* space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs. ": Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a current CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is

202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Abraham Y. Chen
Hi, Tom: 1)    Your caution advice to Karim is professional. With a lot of convoluted topics behind it, however, the net result is basically discouraging the listener from investigating the possibilities. Since this is rather philosophical, it can distract us from the essence unless we carry

202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Abraham Y. Chen
Hi, Enno: 0)    Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts. 1)    However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your paper cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to utilize the 240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet. Our proposal, EzIP

RE: Microsoft contact

2024-01-10 Thread Tony Wicks
Not unusual for random O365 blocks to appear, I especially like they way the reject message trys to refer the user back to their ISP as if their ISP is in any way involved with the internal Microsoft blocklist. “<<< 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [x.x.x.x] weren't sent. Please contact

Microsoft contact

2024-01-10 Thread David Bass
Hi everyone, hope y’all had a great holidays. I’m looking for a Microsoft Office 365 contact who can help us…we’re struggling to get anywhere using the standard methods. We have a customer whose subnet is blacklisted, and is causing a lot of heartache. We’ve proven to a couple of people at this

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Tom Beecher
> > 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 .. > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Michael Butler via NANOG
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 

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Nick Hilliard
Tom Beecher wrote on 10/01/2024 15:12: ( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? ) I'm taking bids on 256.0.0.0/8, which is every bit as publicly routable as 240/4. Nick

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Tom Beecher
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

RE: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread KARIM MEKKAOUI
Interesting and thank you for sharing. KARIM From: Abraham Y. Chen Sent: January 10, 2024 7:35 AM To: KARIM MEKKAOUI Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Chen, Abraham Y. Subject: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Importance: High Hi, Karim: 1)If you have control of your own equipment (I presume

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Enno Rey via NANOG
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Karim: > > 1)?? If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your > business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking > to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4

202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

2024-01-10 Thread Abraham Y. Chen
Hi, Karim: 1)    If you have control of your own equipment (I presume that your business includes IAP - Internet Access Provider, since you are asking to buy IPv4 blocks.), you can get a large block of reserved IPv4 address _/*for free*/_ by _/*disabling*/_ the program codes in your current