Dear Colleagues:
0) I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited
our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4).
(Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the discussion and the
highlighted text where the citation was made.)
1) As the
Hi, Jordi:
1) " ... Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some
parts of Internet will affect others? ... ": The nice thing about the
EzIP scheme is that it proposes a collection of overlay network modules
(the RAN - Regional Area Network), each is tethered from the existing
11:19, Ca By wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Ca By:
1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too
optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the
graph are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing
not about "when" or "how", but "why"
and for "whom". Particularly at a time that IPv4 was planned to be
"dead" soon, what was its "Future" that deserved to be Reserved for?
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-11 09:36)
On 2022-03-10 23:16, William He
Dear Ca By:
1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too
optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph
are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%"
from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on
ope bigger. Since I am not very familiar with the
terminologies, does this interpretation make any sense? Please comment.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-14 00:22)
On 2022-03-12 23:26, John Gilmore wrote:
Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
1) Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history.
Basica
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 18
Message: 42 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:04:01 +1100 From: Mark Andrews
To: "Abraham Y. Chen" Cc: Tom
Beecher , "Chen, Abraham Y." ,
NANOG Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re:
202203151549.AYC Message-ID:
Content-Type: text
be (2022-03-16 22:59)
On 2022-03-16 12:03, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 7:50 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
2)Re: Ur. Pt. 2) " So replace every CPE device, including ... ": It
is evident that you even did not glance at the EzIP Draft Abstract before commenting,
but jus
Hi, Greg:
1) " ... The IETF has changed its position on several (IMO) key
issues during its existence. ... ": Well said! In fact, I believe
(from one of the APNIC blogs recounting the Internet history) that
CG-NAT was one of those "bastards" who turned to be accepted as a prince
whom
Hi, Mark:
1) " ... known defective products ... ": Could you please define
what do you mean? And, what "products" do you have in mind? Otherwise,
this sounds like a scare tactic without a foundation.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-17 11:32)
--
NANOG Digest, Vol
e:
17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker
To: "Abraham Y. Chen" ,
William Herrin Cc: NANOG Subject: Re:
202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:
<79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=
synchronize
our perspective of the IPv6 status.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-14 14:04)
--
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:06:51 -0700
From: Fred Baker
To: Joe Maimon, "Chen, Abraham Y."
, "Abraham Y. Chen&qu
;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this
proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fi
look forward to your thoughts.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-15 16:26)
On 2022-03-14 14:48, Tom Beecher wrote:
If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's
probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF
channels.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y.
-08 10:46)
On 2022-03-08 09:09, Tom Beecher wrote:
I recall reading the IETF draft some time ago. It seemed like an
overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 8:50 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
0) I was made aware of a recent discussi
der Rules" that for sure will distract us from the real topic
on the table, I have sent a request to Valerie Wittkop (Program
Director) for a copy of the "official" rules for me to follow.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-09 23:13)
On 2022-03-09 14:23, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
On 2022-03-09
23:28 EST)
On 2022-03-08 13:08, Stephen Satchell wrote:
On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
In a nutshell, EzIP proposes to disable the program codes in
current routers that have been disabling the use of the 240/4
NetBlock. The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
n Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 6:36 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
1)Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF
Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4
topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, coincided with that of
RFC 791.
ry interested in studying because eMails
these days come in too many formats / styles. Please teach me.
Thanks,
Abe (2022-03-21 12:20)
On 2022-03-20 19:01, Blake Dunlap wrote:
Can you get a standards compliant mail client so it's not a chore to
tell what thread you're even replying to?
On
Dear Pascal:
0) So glad to see your recount of the history and the analysis!
1) We have recently formulated a proposal called EzIP (Phonetic for
Easy IPv4) that is very much along the line of what you just described
below, but with a few twists. I browsed through US patent 7,356,031,
Dear Owen:
0) You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are
interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will
start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the
correct leads.
1) " ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents
** Resend to go through NANOG ***
On 2022-03-23 23:11, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Pascal:
1) " Did you propose this work at a WG in Vienna this week?
": No, but I was invited to be a coauthor of a HuaWei study
comparing addressing schemes that was
** Resend to go through NANOG **
On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Owen:
0) You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are
interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I
will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am
*** Resend to go through NANOG
On 2022-03-23 11:59, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Pascal:
0) So glad to see your recount of the history and the analysis!
1) We have recently formulated a proposal called EzIP (Phonetic for
Easy IPv4) that is very much along the line
* Resend to go through NANOG
On 2022-03-25 12:24, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Owen:
0) You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are
interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I
will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope
the golden rules in the system
engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such
fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance
to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-26 09:35 EDT)
On 2022-03-25 22:17, Owen DeLong
ir code is a lot more involved. Q.E.D.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-26 12:37 EDT)
On 2022-03-26 09:52, Paul Rolland wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:35:30 -0400
"Abraham Y. Chen" wrote:
touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/*
th
e use of
240/4 the
way you expect
While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved
that it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he
adequately grasps the scale of that challenge.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:53 AM Paul Rolland wrote:
Hello,
On Sa
end effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward
getting v6 into wider use?
Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key
pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
Thank you
jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
3) Re:
Hi, Randy:
1) " ... does not mean it is trivial to get it done on *billions* of
device. ... ": It looks that your mind is focused on upgrading
existing IoTs. They are not to be perturbed according to the initial and
short term EzIP deployment plans, because it basically is following
ting ideas to IETF, so I'll
leave that for others who are more knowledgeable on that to speak up
if they're so inclined.
Thank you
jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...
": After a
ot interfere the current
Internet, nor one another. So, what is your concern or reservation?
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-27 16:35)
On 2022-03-27 10:49, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
address based RANs, ea
Hi, Colleagues:
0) I would like to share a personal experience of a different setting
to offer an angle for looking into this puzzling topic.
1) During my graduate study, I was doing microwave experiments in the
laboratory. On a six foot bench, I had a series (maybe a dozen or so) of
Dear Colleagues:
0) I would like to summarize this thread of discussion with the
following:
1) It has been well-known in democracy that too much emphasis on
"majority consensus" may not be really good for the intended goal. For
example, if the general opinions in the ancient time
Ns
form a parallel cyberspace to the Internet, you may look at each RAN as
an isolated balloon for others. So that each RAN can use up the entire
240/4 netblock.
Please clarify your configuration.
Thanks,
Abe (2022-04-01 17:44)
On 2022-04-01 10:55, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
On 2022-04-01 10:00, P
th
wrote:
On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one
IPv4
public address.
So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections? Nobody
of scale would accept such a limitatio
lifies so under your definition.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-02 08:55)
On 2022-04-02 00:21, ant+nanog@antiphase.net wrote:
On 1 Apr 2022, at 11:17, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
4) EzIP proposes an overlay cyberspace with geographic flavor to restore the
society infrastructure back to Pt. 2) ab
happened in the current IPv4
can still do. Some levels can be created IPv6 only from the start,
providing YATT addresses to those who need to communicate with the
other levels.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 23:45
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Vasil
th also terminates my communications and security and by
so doing introduces a number of uncertainties potentially rather
arbitrary to what would otherwise be under my direct policy domain.
C
"Abraham Y. Chen" writes:
Hi, Christian:
0) Allow me following your "towers of babe
Hi, Matt:
1) The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of
the benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced to this mailing
list about one month ago. That discussion has gyrated into this thread
more concerned about IPv6 related topics, instead. If you missed that
Hi, Owen:
The EzIP addresses (the 240/4 netblock) are proposed to be treated as
"natural resources" without a price tag (or, "free") following the
old-fashioned PSTN discipline, instead of "personal properties" for
auction according to the current Internet way.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-01
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Justin Streiner
; Abraham Y. Chen
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard:
Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot
be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue
w-level engineers (“for dummies”).
Eduard
*From:*NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] *On
Behalf Of *Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
*To:* Matthew Petach ; Masataka Ohta
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not suppo
Hi, Jared:
1) " For cloud providers your IPv4 blocks become your moat. ": It
is interesting that your closing statement summarizing the current
tactics of keeping customers captive and fending against competition
mirrors well with the "Towers of Babel" metaphor of the ancient days
Hi, Randy:
Great analogy.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-21 15:30)
--
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 03:08:55 -0700
From: Randy Bush
To: Joe Maimon
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
arset=utf-8
It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said:
??? C.??? Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities.
Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.
??? D.??? I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14
requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 su
n
To: John Levine,nanog@nanog.org
Cc:ayc...@avinta.com
Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC
Message-ID:<62384606.2030...@jmaimon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
John Levine wrote:
It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said:
C.R
Dear John:
0) Appreciate very much for your comments.
1) "A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six
routers at my ISP before stopping (probably at the first
default-route-free router). ": Great, this confirms our experience.
While our team's skill is far inferior
Hi, Ant:
1) As I Cc:'ed you, I attempted to contact the author of the IPv4+
draft a few days ago to offer my reading of his work. I have not heard
any response. In short, I believe that IPv4+ is paraphrasing the scheme
of the unsuccessful RFC1385 that EzIP Draft cited as Informative
Hi, Bill:
0) Thanks for bringing up the NANOG posting guideline. We now have
something tangible to discuss.
1) Section 6. looks most relevant. So, I copy and paste it below for
our discussion:
A. 6.1.1. "... > relevant excerpt 1 response to excerpt 1 ...
": This seems
Dear Pascal:
1) I had a quick look at the below updated draft. I presume Figure 2
is intended to address my request. Since each IPv4 address has 4 bytes,
what are the 12 bytes allocated for IPv4 header fields (outer) and
(inner), each? Aren't they the standard first 12 bytes of packet
sion of the draft impacted routers for BCP 38 procedures, this is
now changed. The routers inside a realm can keep operating unmodified, and
there's no need to deploy new policies for ingress filtering.
Keep safe;
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: vendredi 15 avril 2022
Dear Matt:
1) "... I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch
applied to devices, ... ": Please have a look at a concise
whitepaper below that does what you are hoping for and more. It proposes
an overlay architecture, called EzIP, tethered from the current Internet
Dear Borg:
1) " ... I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it a new
protocol. ... new IP protocol that is much more similar to IPv4, just
extends address space. ... ": I believe that you will be pleasantly
surprised at the proposal summarized by the the below whitepaper. It
al-knockout-dca-blocked-from-being-heard-on-its-merit/
Hope I am not boring you by being too wordy.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-17 12:20)
--
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19
Message: 9 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:38:51 -0400 From: Tom Beecher
To: "Abraham Y.
Hi, Tom:
1) " ... it has serious deficiencies. ... ": Could you please be
specific? Branding something without qualifying information is
unprofessional.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-17 13:18)
--
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Mar
Dear John:
0) The below message just popped up in my InBox. And, it appears that
there has not been any follow-up comments.
1) How about have a look at our work, (URL below), in case you have not
come across? We propose a very specific way of making use of the 240/4
netblock. There are a
Dear Colleagues:
0) Appreciate very much for the discussion on this platform (and
others), we learned a lot about Internet topics and considerations.
1) Two Appendixes, G & H have been added to the latest IETF draft
revision (URL below). They summarize our digest of the feedback and
Hi, John:
1) "... i.e. we’re instead going to engage in the worlds longest running
game of “whack-a-mole” by just blocking their last known website/mail
server/botnet and the wishing for the best… ":
Perhaps it is time for us to consider the "Back to the Future" strategy,
i.e., the Internet
it.
On 23 Jul 2022, at 10:28 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, John:
1) "... i.e. we’re instead going to engage in the worlds longest
running game of “whack-a-mole” by just blocking their last known
website/mail server/botnet and the wishing for the best… ":
Perhaps it is tim
2022-07-27 23:28 EDT)
On 2022-07-24 13:57, John Curran wrote:
On 24 Jul 2022, at 10:20 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, John:
1) "... dynamically assigned IP address space can still be tracked back to a given
system ... ": I fully agree with this statement. However,
Hi, Keith:
The root cause of phone spam is because Caller-ID service was first
deteriorated by a marketing gimmick that enabled the spoofing of the
Caller-ID. Combined with eMail spam techniques, VoIP operations have now
become out of hand. Below is an overview of these annoyances. This is a
Dear Pascal:
Have not heard your follow-up thoughts and comments.
It would be much appreciated if we can carry this dialog forward.
Regards,
Abe (2022-05-05 11:23 EDT)
On 2022-04-21 17:38, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Pascal:
0) Thanks for your clarification. It enabled me to study your
Dear Noah:
0) "Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.": Thanks for
distilling this thread to a concise principle. Perhaps your name was
given with the foresight of this discussion?
1) As a newcomer to the arena, I have always been perplexed by the
apparent collective NIH
Dear Brian, et al.:
0) Thanks for sharing the Robocall situation in Italy. This confirms
that the RoboCall phenomenon is now universal, not just in US. Although,
from my experience, I am not surprised at all.
1) Based on my best understanding, I believe that the entire issue has
been
Dear bzs et el.:
1) I was made aware of the referenced "New IP" efforts about two years
ago. After watching the below online discussion video recording, in
particular, Andrew Sullivan's comments near the end (starting at time
marker 00:53:42) that reminded us about thefull architecture versus
Dear William:
0) "Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.": Thank you so much in
distilling this thread one more step for getting even closer to its essence.
1) The ITU charter is explicit in that governments are the parties who
sponsor the Recommendations, then implement them as desired,
Dear Bill, Et al.:
0) Ever since I signed up to the NANOG List, I have been getting
complaints about my eMail style, format, etc. Since I could not find any
document that clearly stated the guidelines and no one cared about
providing an explicit lead, it has been a very frustrating
uck to you.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:44 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Tom:
Have not heard from you since the below MSG. Could you please let me
know if you have seen it, so that we can carry on by avoiding the
repeated open-loop situation with this thread?
Regards,
Ab
.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/
Regards,
Abe (2022-12-03 18:40 EST)
On 2022-11-27 21:31, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 24 Nov 2022, at 19:53, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Joe:
0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up.
1) "...https://www.google.c
r
proposal is much better spent on ipv6 implementation and various forms
of improved cgnat.
Trying to extend the use of ipv4 space resources for a few more years
is directly analogous to building sand castles on the beach when the
tide is obviously coming in.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 07:29, Abraham Y. C
Dear Eric:
0) Your analysis may have started from an assumption that is different
from that of the EzIP. That is,
1) The EzIP proposes to use the 240/4 as a replacement of the 100.64/10
of RFC6598 for enhancing the CG-NAT. Thus, 240/4 will be used as
reusable netblocks like those in
rs does not mean "60% of servers". For
servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web
resources.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: Thursd
plicit from the way that Pt. 1) is presented these are
not to be removed.
Hope this quick brief response brings us back on track. Let me know if
the above makes sense. Then, I will work on other topics.
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-24 04:41 EST)
On 2022-11-23 22:36, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Tue, Nov
Dear Joe:
0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up.
1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks
like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be
deceiving.
A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched
Tinka wrote:
On 11/19/22 05:50, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Owen:
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:
It's most amusing, to me, how Africa needs to b
.
Hope the above background recap is sufficient to clear your concerns. I
look forward to our additional exchanges.
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-20 17:00 EST)
On 2022-11-20 13:41, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:03 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Mark:
0) I am surprised at your
f-consistent. Please let me know any parts that are not
clear. I will try to improve them.
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-21 09:49 EST)
On 2022-11-20 16:15, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:53 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Owen:
1) "... Africa ... They don’t really ha
Dear Owen:
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
2) If this looks a bit too technical
requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of
servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just
20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of A
UA) is splitting every message on a new
thread.
I'm not sure if it is happening with everyone, but using Gmail as MUA,
it isn't aggregating the mails on the same thread.
Cloud you please check the confs of your tool to avoid it?
Thanks in advance.
Em qui., 24 de nov. de 2022 às 05:56, Abraham Y. C
Dear Tom:
Have not heard from you since the below MSG. Could you please let me
know if you have seen it, so that we can carry on by avoiding the
repeated open-loop situation with this thread?
Regards,
Abe (2022-12-01 07:44 EST)
On 2022-11-22 23:23, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Tom
o may not understand, this is not an
'alternative'. This is an idea that was initially proposed by the
authors almost exactly 6 years ago. It's received almost no interest
from anyone involved in internet standards, and for various technical
reasons , likely never will.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Abr
mile infrastructure on
extremely limited budgets. Or really just about anywhere else where
the residential broadband market has households where the entire
household monthly income is the equivalent of $500 USD.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 at 04:59, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 11/19/22 05:50, A
t there is no easier task than this.
https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-21 11:18 EST)
On 2022-11-20 23:56, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Mark:
0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
1) The EzI
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
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 y
also
always going to end up being wrong.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:19 AM Abraham Y. Chen
wrote:
Dear Mark:
0) Thanks for the clarification. I understand. A short message
through
the cyberspace, especially between parties who have never met can be
easily skewed. I am
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 speci
Dear BZS:
1) " ... it was more likely due to the success of CGNAT.": Looking
forward from this milestone marker, what would you envision as the
possible additions to CG-NAT's characteristics and capabilities for the
potential expansion of its services and enhancement to its performances?
rything is digitized. Distinguishing
among voice and data becomes extra work. So, I see the tendency to
encrypt everything.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-18 23:15)
On 2024-01-16 01:38, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 1:21 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
If I subs
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
or 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
e treated as a premium service that
can be built up with time base on demand.
Let's not mixing B. with A. as a one-shot job in this discussion.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-10 22:10 EST)
On 2024-01-10 07:57, Enno Rey via NANOG wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:35:01AM -0500, Abraham Y. Chen
Hi, Michael:
1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a
private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ":
EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area
Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to the
me that there are colleagues
here probably still using plain text editors for eMail?
I shall keep this in mind for my future eMails.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 15:54)
On 2024-01-13 14:45, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Abraham!
On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:35:09 -0500
"Abraham Y. Chen&qu
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
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
?
On the other hand, if RFC6598 had picked 240/4 instead of 100.64/10 as
the netblock, we do not need today's discussions.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 12:14)
On 2024-01-12 07:34, Niels Bakker wrote:
* ayc...@avinta.com (Abraham Y. Chen) [Fri 12 Jan 2024, 13:09 CET]:
EzIP proposes that 240/
ncoming packets with
a destination of a public address/port to a private IP address/port
inside your network."
Source:
https://serverfault.com/questions/119365/what-is-the-difference-between-a-source-nat-destination-nat-and-masquerading
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 23:17, Ab
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
