Hi, Owen:
0) I am glad that you do not object to the notion that two premises
on an RAN can establish end-to-end connectivity via L2 routing.
1) For a better visualization, the below derivation will make use of
figures in the EzIP Draft:
No. No matter how you cobble it, IPv4 doesn’t have enough addresses to restore proper end to end connectivity. OwenOn Jan 20, 2024, at 07:36, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Owen:
1) " ... IPv4 used
to work before NAT made everything horrible. ":
Hi, Owen:
1) " ... IPv4 used to work before NAT made everything horrible. ":
Utilizing 240/4, RAN is a flat space which should support this kind
of rudimentary end-to-end connectivity within each RAN. (called L2
routing, correct?)
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-20 10:35)
On 2024-01-19
Any host connected to a reasonably well peered ISP (e.g. NOT Cogent) with IPv6
should be able to communicate with any other such host so long as the
administrative policies on both sides permit it.
I have no difficulty directly reaching a variety of IPv6 hosts from the /48 in
my home.
Hi, Forrest:
1) " if you have IPv6 service and I have IPv6 service, our IPv6 devices
can talk directly to each other without needing any VPN or similar. ":
Thanks. So, is it true that the reason IPv4 could not do so is solely
because it does not have enough static addresses for every
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 3:08 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> 1)Re: Ur. Pt. 1):The initial deployment of EzIP overlay is only
> applying 240/4 to existing (IPv4 based) CG-NAT facility to become the
> overlaying RAN, plus upgrading RG-NATs (Routing / Residential NATs) to
> OpenWrt. So that none
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 1:21 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to
> communicate (voice and data) directly between two homes in private like the
> dial-up modem operations in the PSTN? If so, is it available anywhere right
> now?
>
It was always about using 240/4 as shared service provider space, just a
roundabout way of doing it.
You can call a horse a horse, or you can call it "an animal that pulls a
wagon which carries people and items from A to B". At the end of the day,
it's still a horse.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
If I remember correctly, quite a few years ago, "EzIP" was something else
entirely.
I vaguely remember them talking about having some kind of extended IPv4
address or to use an extension header or something like that. It was
something that would essentially require the entire Internet to be
>From what I gather, "EzIP" is just a fancy name for repurposing the 240/4
address space as RFC6598 shared address space for service providers and
adding another gateway into a network to make it look like a new
technology, nothing more. It does absolutely nothing more than what is
already
The reality is your whole concept for EzIP is so impractical and so unlikely to be implemented by any service provider with half a clue, that I’m not sure why I would even try to explain to you why a Radio Access Network is relevant to the Internet. You obviously have decided you are smarter than
Hi, Sronan:
1) “Radio Access Network”:
Thanks for bringing this up. Being an RF engineer by training, I am
aware of this terminology. However, how specific is its claimed
applicable domain?
2) I went to search on an acronym site and found a long list of
expressions that
You most certainly can, it's called a VPN. One side initiates a connection
to the other.
;)
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 07:21, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi, Forrest:
>
> 1)I have a question:
>
> If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to
Please don’t use the term RAN, this acronym already has a very specific definition in the telecom/network space as “Radio Access Network.”ShaneOn Jan 15, 2024, at 5:12 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Forrest:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1):
The initial
Hi, Forrest:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1): The initial deployment of EzIP overlay is only
applying 240/4 to existing (IPv4 based) CG-NAT facility to become the
overlaying RAN, plus upgrading RG-NATs (Routing / Residential NATs) to
OpenWrt. So that none of the on-premises IoTs will sense any changes.
Hi, Forrest:
1) I have a question:
If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to
communicate (voice and data) directly between two homes in private like
the dial-up modem operations in the PSTN? If so, is it available
anywhere right now?
Regards,
Abe
On 2024-01-13 04:03, Brett O'Hara wrote:
They have no interest in trying new things or making new technology
work without a solid financial reason and there is none for them
implementing ipv6.
When I left $DAYJOB-1 almost 2 years ago, they had just finished
increasing fees on IPv4 blocks
+1
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Brett O'Hara
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. ; NANOG
Subject: Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re:
IPv4
Ok you've triggered me on your point 2. I'll address the elephant in the
room.
IPv4 is never ever going away.
Right now consumer services are mostly (mobile, wireless, landline, wide
generalization) are IPv6 capable. Most consumer applications are ipv6
capable, Google, Facebook, etc.There is
On 13/01/2024, 08:40:11, "Giorgio Bonfiglio via NANOG"
wrote:
2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for any
of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future. […] I
really expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for
Let me start with I think we're largely on the same page here.
The transition I see happening next is that the consumer traffic largely
moves to IPv6 with no CG-NAT. That is, if you're at home or on your phone
watching video or doing social media or using whatever app is all the rage
it's going
> 2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for any
> of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future. […] I
> really expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for
> IPv4.
It’s never gonna happen … why would Google, or any
A couple of points:
1) There is less work needed to support IPv6 than your proposed solution.
I'm not taking about 230/4. I'm talking about your EzIP overlay.
2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for
any of their services at a specific date a couple of years in
Hi, Forrest:
0) You put out more than one topic, all at one time. Allow me to
address each briefly.
1) " The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's
side and every provider that has one wants to make it go away as quickly
as possible. ":
The feeling and
24 matches
Mail list logo
