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:
> 2)Philosophically, IPv6 and IPv4 are kind of like two religions, each
> with its own believers. As long as the devotees of each focus on their
> respective passion, the world will be peaceful. As soon as one camp imposes
> its preference onto the other, friction starts. Unchecked, it can
645.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, Chris:
0)Thanks for your observation.
1)Although I specifically requested Karim to go offline on our idea to his
inquiry, lots o
Hi, Chris:
0) Thanks for your observation.
1) Although I specifically requested Karim to go offline on our idea
to his inquiry, lots of comments appeared on NANOG publicly. To be
polite, I tried to respond by clarifying and describing each.
Unfortunately, many comments are actually
On Jan 20, 2024, at 11:56 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Christopher:
>
> 1) "... It would simply increase the workload of their support and
> provisioning teams. Right now, in cases where ISPs use DHCP, they can simply
> ship a router to an end-user, the user plugs it in, turns
>
> Because people keep responding.
>
Doesn't really make any difference. Mr. Chen filed his first draft in Dec
2016. He finds a reason to talk about it on every mailing list and forum
he can find, but doesn't spend any time engaging in the standards
processes, other than renewing his 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. ":
Once upon a time, sro...@ronan-online.com said:
> I am curious if anyone has ever given you positive feedback on this idea? So
> far
> all I’ve seen is the entire community thinking it’s a bad idea. Why do you
> insist this is a good solution?
Because people keep responding.
--
Chris Adams
I am curious if anyone has ever given you positive feedback on this idea? So far all I’ve seen is the entire community thinking it’s a bad idea. Why do you insist this is a good solution?ShaneOn Jan 20, 2024, at 11:56 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Christopher:
1) "
Hi, Christopher:
1) " ... It would simply increase the workload of their support
and provisioning teams. Right now, in cases where ISPs use DHCP, they
can simply ship a router to an end-user, the user plugs it in, turns it
on, and away they go. ":
I do understand the current
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
> On Jan 19, 2024, at 09:21, Charles Polisher wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Some, but not a lot. In the case of the DTMF transition, the
> > network and handsets were all under the central control of a
> > single provider at a time when they could have forced the change
> > if they
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Some, but not a lot. In the case of the DTMF transition, the
> network and handsets were all under the central control of a
> single provider at a time when they could have forced the change
> if they really wanted to. After all, nobody was going to cancel
> their phone
Hi, Owen:
0) Thanks for sorting out my vague memory, citing some consumer
electronics evolution history and an excellent overview of the current
IPv4/IPv6 landscape.
1) I believe that consumer electronics including PC related products
and services are in a separate category from the
: Abraham Y. Chen , nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Why is this conversation even still going on?
It's been established ~100 messages ago that the plan here is nonsense.
it's been established ~80 messages ago that the 'lemme swap
> On Jan 15, 2024, at 09:37, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Christopher"
>
> 1)" IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. ":
> Correct. But, this is not like Ten Commandments that God gave to his
> children. Even such had not worked out in most cases. In real life, technical
> backward
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.
Why is this conversation even still going on?
It's been established ~100 messages ago that the plan here is nonsense.
it's been established ~80 messages ago that the 'lemme swap subjects to
confuse the issue' is nonsense.
stop feeding the troll.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:20 PM Christopher
According to the diagram on page 8 of the presentation on your website at
https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf, it simply
identifies 240/4 as CGNAT space. Routing between regional access networks
typically doesn't take place when using such space on an ISP network, and
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
Hi, Christopher:
1) " If "EzIP" is about using 240/4 as CGNAT space, ... ":
This correlation is just the starting point for EzIP deployment, so
that it would not be regarded as a base-less crazy dream. Once a 240/4
enabled RAN is established as a new network overlaying on the CG-NAT
> On Jan 14, 2024, at 19:50, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Ryan:
>
> 1) " ... it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google. ":
>
> Perhaps you were referring to the following?
>
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
> 2)If so, your quotation is
>
> If "EzIP" is about using 240/4 as CGNAT space, let's call it what it is,
> not rename something that already exists and attempt to claim it as a new
> idea.
>
Yes he is essentially re-creating NAT/CGNAT, but in a worse way.
If you ignore all the multitude of technical issues, if you grabbed
On 1/15/24 11:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 21:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
An ipv4 free network would be nice, but is hardly needed. There will
always be a long tail of ipv4 and so what? You deal with it at your
I mean Internet free DFZ, so that everyone is not forced to
Yes, some folks made Bell very umm... blue at times.
Indeed I remember a Touch Tone fee on our bills until the 90's. In fact, at
one point I couldn't believe it was still a charge, as rotary phones had
largely been replaced either as a choice or through attrition.
Consumers WANTED Touch Tone.
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, 15 Jan 2024 at 21:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
> An ipv4 free network would be nice, but is hardly needed. There will
> always be a long tail of ipv4 and so what? You deal with it at your
I mean Internet free DFZ, so that everyone is not forced to maintain
two stacks at extra cost,
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
If "EzIP" is about using 240/4 as CGNAT space, let's call it what it is,
not rename something that already exists and attempt to claim it as a new
idea.
It is completely unnecessary to use 240/4 as CGNAT space. Here are a few
reasons why:
1. There are 4,194,304 IPv4 addresses in a /10 prefix.
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, Warren:
1) " not intended to be endorsement…":
Fully agreed.
2) "Implying that it is is disingenuous… ":
Again, I fully agree.
3) Note that I only stated "It opened our eyes about what were the
implications of EzIP ... ". It was an education moment that was more
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 1/15/24 09:37, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
2) Allow me to share with you an almost parallel event in the PSTN,
to illustrate how tough is to achieve the replacement of a working
service, even under an environment with very strict backward
compatibility disicpline:
A. The Decadic
On 1/15/24 12:26 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
In actual customer deployments I see the same levels, even up to 85% of IPv6
traffic. It basically depends on the usage of the caches and the % of
residential vs corporate customers.
You
On 1/15/24 12:56 AM, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which
doesn’t mean that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we
are missing many enterprises.
I don't think what's going on internally with enterprise needs to
Hi, Christopher"
1) " IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. ":
Correct. But, this is not like Ten Commandments that God gave to
his children. Even such had not worked out in most cases. In real life,
technical backward compatibility is the only known approach to achieve
graceful
Hi, Christopher:
1) " Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space?
Wait, I'm lost... ":
Correct. This is one way to visualize the EzIP deployment. This
configuration is so far the most concise manner to describe the the EzIP
building block, RAN (Regional Area
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
Hi, Tom:
1) " Vint told you the same thing other people have been telling you
for years. You don't seem to name drop anyone else. Weird. ":
As far as we are aware of, Vint was the first and only person who
branded EzIP as an "overlay" network. Please identify who else said the
I strongly disagree that IPv6 is very much an afterthought.
A perfect example is that in Australia, our largest mobile network provider
Telstra, has completely moved to IPv6 single-stack on their mobile network
for pre-paid and post-paid customers. Russell Langton made the announcement
in
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:59, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which doesn’t
> mean that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we are missing
> many enterprises.
Because of low entropy of A-B pairs in bps volume, seeing
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which doesn’t mean
that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we are missing many
enterprises.
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
> El 15 ene 2024, a las 9:26, Saku Ytti escribió:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05,
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> In actual customer deployments I see the same levels, even up to 85% of IPv6
> traffic. It basically depends on the usage of the caches and the % of
> residential vs corporate customers.
You think you are contributing to the IPv6
All those measurements are missing the amount of traffic in the caches located
at the ISPs.
For each download passing thru AMSIX, there are thousands of multiples of that
download (videos, music, documents, static contents, OS updates, etc.) flowing
to thousands of customers. In some cases is
address block
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
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 06:18, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
If 50٪ of the servers and 50% of the clients can do IPv6, the amount of
> IPv6 traffic will be around 25% since both ends have to do IPv6.
>
This assumes cosmological principle applies to the Internet,
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
>
> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> "Re:") then you intend to
- Original Message -
> From: "Abraham Y. Chen"
> Hi, Bryan:
[ ... ]
> 2) From the Wikipedia explanation of RFC5822, I as a ThunderBird
> user, really have nothing to do with the Message-ID that it puts on my
> MSGs nor how does it make use of such to display the threads. And, my
>
> My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if
> IPv6 was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition
> from IPv4.
i'll try again
there was a transition plan; it was dual stack. i did not say it was a
*good* transition plan.
the plan's fatal flaw was that
To my knowledge IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. Anyone, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong. There are just short of 4.3 billion IPv4
addresses, where the number of IPv6 addresses is 39 digits long.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi,
ttps://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Tom Beecher"
> *To: *"M
Hi, Randy:
1) " ... unfortunately i already had grey hair in the '90s and was in
the room for all this, ... ":
My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if IPv6
was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition from IPv4.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-14
osals, and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
> *To:* Ryan Hamel
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org ; Michael Butler
> ; Chen, Abraham
> Y.
>
-
*From: *"Tom Beecher"
*To: *"Mike Hammett"
*Cc: *"Ryan Hamel" , "Abraham Y. Chen"
, nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, January 12, 2024 2:06:32 PM
*Subject: *Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC
anog.org ; Michael Butler
; Chen, Abraham Y.
*Subject:* IPv6? Re: 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, Ryan:
1) " ... Save y
Bryan:
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
should work per the RFC appendix.
Actually, no it's not. RFC5322 reads: "This specification is not intended
to dictate ... any of the characteristics of user interface programs that
create or read messages".
5822
>
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
Well, no. Asterisks added for emphasis.
This specification is intended as a definition of what message
>content format is to be passed between systems. Though some message
>
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:58 PM Bryan Fields mailto:br...@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
>> Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new
>> thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
>>
>> Trying to follow the
> I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed referee.
> For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette
> established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously distracted our
> attention from the topic of essence. You now have
Hi, Bryan:
1) " ... Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I
think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ... ":
I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed
On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
threading.
Note, threading works
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:58 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
> > Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new
> > thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
> >
> > Trying to follow the conversation becomes very
Thank you, everyone, for your responses.
Abe, I appreciate your enthisam but it is obvious you are not interested in
collaboration. You are singularly-minded and trollish.
I am assigning your email address to my spam filters. I will not see any
future communication from you.
O.
On Sat, Jan
It appears that Randy Bush said:
>> Some of us still use pine$B!D(B
>
>i thought most pine users had moved to mutt
Some, but pine (now called alpine) is still actively maintained and
does some things better than mutt, particularly if you want to keep
track of multiple inboxes on different
Things you have to remember. Not everyone uses thunderbird. Not every mail client threads like thunderbird. — Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 13, 2024, at 17:39, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Bryan:
0) Thank you so much
for coming to the rescue!!!
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 9:48 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Vint told you the same thing other people have been telling you for years.
> You don't seem to name drop anyone else. Weird.
>
Indeed — Vint made an observation, but this was not intended to be
endorsement…
Implying that it is is
> Some of us still use pine…
i thought most pine users had moved to mutt
randy, who uses wanderlust under emacs :)
Hi, Bryan:
0) Thank you so much for coming to the rescue!!!
1) Basically trained as a radio frequency hardware engineer, I am
only capable of using software as tools necessary for my work. For
eMail, I have been using ThunderBird ever since its beginning. With my
own time-stamping
Hi, Seth:
0) Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts.
1) While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with
the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed
the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now
focusing on
Some of us still use pine…-MikeOn Jan 13, 2024, at 12:57, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Gary:
0) My apologies!
1) I thought that I am one of only a few who
insist on using the most basic tools that get the job done, such
preferring hand tools than
On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new
thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.
Threading has nothing to do with subject lines.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 6:32 AM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> Further, over the last three days you've changed the subject
> line of the thread at least 12 times. Can you please stop changing
> it because every time you do, it starts a new thread and makes it
> rather difficult to keep track of
Hi, Gary:
0) My apologies!
1) I thought that I am one of only a few who insist on using the most
basic tools that get the job done, such preferring hand tools than power
tools if possible. I believed that the ThunderBird eMail client software
was pretty basic. Your message just reminds
Yo Abraham!
On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:35:09 -0500
"Abraham Y. Chen" wrote:
> FYI - Please see the below copy of a partial eMail thread. Bold,
> red colored and Italicized letters are to focus on the topic.
Uh, you realize many of us never see your red or italics?
RGDS
GARY
>> If you limit each requesting organization to a /22 per year, we can
>> keep the internet mostly functional for decades to come,
>
> at least in the ripe ncc service region, all this proved was that if
> the cost of registering a company (or LIR) and applying for an
> allocation was lower than
* ayc...@avinta.com (Abraham Y. Chen) [Sat 13 Jan 2024, 18:16 CET]:
0) Your sender name is in an unusual format. It becomes just the
generic NANOG address as the recipient for me to MSG send to.
Your numbered lists are 0-indexed. So clever! Also, your MUA
seems to understand
Hi, Niels:
0) Your sender name is in an unusual format. It becomes just the
generic NANOG address as the recipient for me to MSG send to.
1) " You have posted this statement like five times now in the past
two days. ":
Perhaps so, I have been responding to numerous comments
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
Hi, Christopher:
Thanks for the confirmation.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 11:42)
On 2024-01-12 07:30, Christopher Hawker wrote:
"Source NAT changes the source address in IP header of a packet. It
may also change the source port in the TCP/UDP headers. The typical
usage is to change the a
> at least in the ripe ncc service region, all this proved was that if the
> cost of registering a company (or LIR) and applying for an allocation
> was lower than the market rate of ipv4 addresses, then people would do
that.
Funny you say that, I had the same discussion with someone yesterday.
Vint told you the same thing other people have been telling you for years.
You don't seem to name drop anyone else. Weird.
Respectfully, you have no credibility in this area. I happened to notice
this gem re-reading your draft last night,
A.1.1. T1a Initiates a Session Request towards T4a
>
>
Matthew Petach wrote on 13/01/2024 00:27:
In light of that, I strongly suspect that a second go-around at
developing more beneficial post-exhaustion policies might turn out
very differently than it did when many of us were naively thinking
we understood how people would behave in a
Implementing EzIP, as Forrest mentioned 3 days ago, has far more challenges
than implementing IPv6. It will also cause far more incompatibilities when
it comes to routing traffic between a network which has implemented it and
one that hasn't. It also sounds like another version of NAT,
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
Hi, Tom:
1) " ... Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
... ":
FYI - Please see the below copy of a partial eMail thread. Bold,
red colored and Italicized letters are to focus on the topic.
***
internetpol...@elist.isoc.orgeMail thread
On 2021-10-18
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
To: "Abraham Y. Chen" , "Vasilenko Eduard" Cc: "Abraham Y. Chen" , nanog@nanog.orgSent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:04:31 PMSubject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Abraham,
You may not need permission from the IETF, but yo
quot; To: "Abraham Y. Chen" , "Vasilenko Eduard" Cc: "Abraham Y. Chen" , nanog@nanog.orgSent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:04:31 PMSubject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Abraham,
You may not need permission fro
interesting side note:
when iij was deploying the v6 backbone in '97, commercial routers did
not support dual stack. so it was a parallel backbone built on netbsd
with the kame stack, which was developed in iij lab.
we remember itojun.
randy
Wow... There is some serious learning about the internet to be done here!
When Randy was deploying IPv6 across the IIJ backbone, I was running around
in kindergarten. I didn't even know what the internet was back then.
Amazing what can happen in 26 years...
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Sat,
> I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I come out
> to see Mr. Chen :
> - Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6
> - Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
>
> Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage.
but it sure is a change to have a
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
