> 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
tance is futile."
That is the last of my .02c for this thread.
Ryan
From: NANOG on behalf of Abraham Y.
Chen via NANOG
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 9:06:28 AM
To: Chris Adams
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100
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
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
: 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
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, 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
>
> 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
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.
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
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
-
*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
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
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Tom Beecher"
> *To: *"Mike Hammett"
> *Cc: *"Ryan Hamel" , "Abraham Y. Chen" <
> ayc...@alum.mit.edu>, nanog@nanog.org
Abraham Y. Chen" ,
nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 2:06:32 PM
Subject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
You don't need everything in the world to support it, just the things "you"
use.
You run an ISP, let me posit
https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Tom Beecher"
> *To: *"Mike Hammett"
> *Cc: *"Ryan Hamel" , "Abraham Y. Chen" <
> ayc...@alum.
From: "Ryan Hamel" < r...@rkhtech.org >
To: "Abraham Y. Chen" < ayc...@avinta.com >, "Vasilenko Eduard" <
vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com >
Cc: "Abraham Y. Chen" < ayc...@alum.mit.edu >, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, Janua
an Hamel"
> *To: *"Abraham Y. Chen" , "Vasilenko Eduard" <
> vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>
> *Cc: *"Abraham Y. Chen" , nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:04:31 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100
t Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Hamel"
To: "Abraham Y. Chen" , "Vasilenko Eduard"
Cc: "Abraham Y. Chen" , nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:04:31 PM
Subject: Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 2
Public side of the NAT would need a huge IPv4 Public pool.
Replacing Private pool to something bigger is a very corner case.
Mobile Carriers identify subscribers not by the IP, they could easy tolerate
many overlapping 10/8 even on one Mobile Core.
Huge private pool 240/4 is needed only for Cloud
Abraham,
You may not need permission from the IETF, but you effectively need it from
every networking vendor, hardware vendor, and OS vendor. If you do not have buy
in from key stakeholders, it's dead-on arrival.
Ryan
From: NANOG on behalf of Abraham Y.
Chen
27 matches
Mail list logo
