Posts by AbeChen

IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4, argues APNIC's chief scientist

Re: ipv6 is a mess and ipv4 will not die anytime soon

Hi, Jusme:

1) " ... If it had just addressed the core problem, 32-bit addresses, in a way that was directly compatible, by now we might have had 100% support. ... ":

There is a proposal along exactly this line on the table. Please have a look at the below presentation.

https://www.avinta.com/gallery/DeterministicInternet.pdf

2) If you are inclined, we can carry on offline. My eMail address is [e-mail]. I respond to none real-time communications within 48 hours.

Regards,

Abe (2024-10-26 09:28 EDT)

Re: NAT should be enough for everything

Hi, Jellied Eel:

0) “… address depletion was a problem solved by the telcos over a century ago with the addition of country code …“:

Thanks for applying what we learned in the past century to the problem of today. Utilitarian technology is more efficiently advanced by incremental steps than big jumps. Allow me to extend your trend of thoughts by quantifying a couple parameters.

1) Based on the telco perspective, the first thing that we need to do is to figure out a numbering scheme to identify an Internet user. We will use IPv4 because its twelve numerical digits from the dot-decimal format are in the ball park with traditional telephony numbers that most people are used to. The lengthy IPv6 address format is just too long to be user-friendly.

2) To be sure that every user is identifiable, we need an IPv4 netblock as large as possible. The best candidate is the long-reserved 240/4 netblock with 256M address combinations.

3) Although over 90% of countries worldwide have population fewer than 256M, several do exceed it. So, we must define a numbering system with a building block that is ready to be reused several times within these larger countries. Let’s define each area served by one block of 240/4 as a RAN (Regional Area Network).

4) By revamping the fundamental resources (the IP address pool), the Internet can be simplified and streamlined in more than a couple areas. For example, within each RAN, every subscriber will be assigned a static address leading to no more need for CG-NAT. So that end-to-end connectivity (within respective RAN) becomes a reality. The presentation below goes into more manifestations.

https://www.avinta.com/gallery/DeterministicInternet.pdf

5) Similar as the telephony country code (there are around 200 worldwide) prefix that you cited, we need a set of RAN code prefixes to identify each of them. In practice, this will exceed the capacity of one IPv4 octet (256) due to multiple RANs per large county, as well as reserving spare addresses within each RAN for medium sized countries.

6) Since the total number of RAN code prefixes will exceed one octet, we might as well enlist a full four-octet IPv4 address so that we can make use of the Option Word mechanism in the IPv4 Header to carry them as the address for directing packets among RANs utilizing the established routing convention. This second set of IPv4 address (one for identifying each RAN) can be drawn from the public IPv4 address pool currently allocated to respective countries. The following IETF Draft goes through the specifics about how this may be done.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space

7) Please have a look at the above. There is a lot more information than appropriate for discussing on this forum. If you are inclined, please contact me offline. You can find my contact information at the end of the above IETF Draft. I normally respond to none real-time communications within 48 hours.

Regards,

Abe (2024-10-24 11:36 EDT)

Europol cops lean on phone networks, ISPs to dump CGNAT walls that 'hide' cyber-crooks

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Here are two pieces of updated information for share:

1) The following is a discussion thread on the "state of IPv6". The findings are quite surprising.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) Then, you may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposed architecture eliminating CG-NAT for expanding IPv4 address pool, addressing ITU's CIR proposal, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

These should provide some material for furthering the dialog

Abe (2020-08-30 16:51 EDT)

Global IPv4 address drought: Seriously, we're done now. We're done

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Here are two pieces of updated information for share:

1) The following is a discussion thread on the "state of IPv6". The findings are quite surprising.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) Then, you may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposed architecture for expanding IPv4 address pool, addressing ITU's CIR proposal, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

These should provide some material for furthering the dialog.

Abe (2020-08-30 16:29 EDT)

Internet engineers tear into United Nations' plan to move us all to IPv6

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Here are two pieces of updated information for share:

1) The following is a discussion thread on the "state of IPv6". The findings are quite surprising.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) Then, you may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposed architecture for expanding IPv4 address pool, addressing ITU's CIR proposal, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

These should provide some material for furthering the dialog.

Abe (2020-08-30 16:19 EDT)

Strewth! Aussie ISP gets eye-watering IPv4 bill, shifts to IPv6 addresses

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Here are two pieces of updated information for share:

1) The following is a discussion thread on the "state of IPv6". The findings are quite surprising.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) Then, you may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposed architecture for expanding IPv4 address pool, addressing ITU's CIR proposal, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

These should provide some material for furthering the dialog.

Abe (2020-08-30 16:15 EDT)

Re: BIOS IPv4...

Hi, Luiz:

Your analogy of booting a PC from BIOS may sound interesting, but will not work for IPv6. Anyone with a logical mind would assume that the IPv6 code should operate over the IPv4 foundation which is called backwards compatible. However, it is now an open-secret that IPv6 was not designed with such basic engineering discipline in mind. Even encapsulating IPv4 address by IPv6 seems to be a task by itself.

IPv6 co-exists with IPv4 in the current Internet environment, but can't talk with each other, except through various additional intermediary protocols under a general term called Dual-Stack. I do not know enough to study Dual-Stack. But, I heard comments saying some of these protocols require the use of IPv4 address anyway.

Since EzIP can do away with IPv6 to avoid all of the mind-twisting issues, wouln't it be a better choice?

Abe (2018-09-06 15:43)

IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

The IPv4 address shortage issues have been resolved. We came upon a scheme that can expand each public IPv4 address by 256M (Million) fold without affecting the current Internet. A proposal called EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) has been submitted to IETF:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space-03

Essentially, EzIP can establish a sub-Internet capable of serving an area with up to 256M IoTs from just one IPv4 address. This is bigger than the largest city (Tokyo metro) and 75% of the countries. This can realize the CIR (Country-based Internet Registry) model proposed by ITU a few years ago stealthily without setting up a CIR organization. If a government is not interested in this resources, private enterprises can make use of it to provide "local" Internet service in parallel to the current "global" Internet services, very much like the Independent telephone companies in the PSTN industry.

The current Internet then becomes the backbone / infrastructure / skeleton for interconnecting these sub-Internets, yet only for carrying inter sub-Internet traffic, very similar as the electric grid supporting islands of renewable energy generated by individual homes and businesses. Consequently, there will be a lot of spare IPv4 addresses for quite sometime to come.

Then, much of the efforts in deploying IPv6 are no longer needed.

Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated.

Abe (2018-09-06 09:06)

We've found another problem with IPv6: It's sparked a punch-up between top networks

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

1) Please have a look at the following discussion thread on the "state of IPv6". The cause may be within.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) Then, you may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposal for expanding IPv4 address pool, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

These should provide some material for furthering the dialog.

Abe (2020-08-29 23:12 EDT)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

1) If you are talking about v4, I agree with you that EzIP is attempting to do so.

2) All the "transparent" cases that you listed are correct, except the last part. That is, the engineers definitely have to know there is change.

Abe (2018-10-22 21:24)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

1) "... any system that has the appropriate software support ... ":

What do you mean by this? Who is counting on some extra support? What is the "software support" that you are implying? And, it even has to be "appropriate"? Aren't you getting too vague now?

2) Putting it in another way, since IPv6 has been relying heavily on so much marketing push to get the deployment going, the activities are too explicit for anyone to overlook. It just could not be classified as "transparent" which is part of the implied requirements for being qualified as backward compatible.

(Remember what I described to you about hot-swaps and midnight cut-overs for the telephony equipment updates in the old days? Those events were so transparent to the subscribers that everyone executed as routines. No one made it a subject to talk about.)

Abe (2018-10-07 19:04)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

1) " By this expanded definition, EzIP is not backwards compatible, because it uses v4 unless both sides have EzIP. ":

Backward compatibility in this case means that the new system (EzIP) is able to transparently handle the old format (basic IPv4), so that no one is required to be capable of the advanced capability (EzIP) if not interested in it. Thus," falling back" to requiring both sides to use IPv4 when someone in the loop is not capable of EzIP is actually conforming to the Kosher definition of "backward" compatibility.

2) "Operators and users need to deal with both. ": Actually, the current "operators" (the CR & ER - Core and Edge Routers) are not expected to handle EzIP at all, because the Option Word is transparent to them. Only "users" are encouraged to upgrade their IoTs to be EzIP-capable, so that they can enjoy the straight routing that offers end-to-end connectivity.

Abe (2018-09-29 09:40)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jellied Eel:

0) Thanks for your in-depth comments with historical references. It is very educational, I appreciate very much. Sorry that I did not respond earlier because I was still trying to figure out how to present the EzIP. Some of the points that you brought up near the end are very controversial and convoluted. Fortunately, I believe applying the demarcation principle, the EzIP can largely avoid them.

1) I agree with your observation and recommendation. That is, EzIP could just go find a carrier / operator to deploy the SPRs without the blessing from the IETF, because each SPR looks like an IoT or one CPE from the Internet. We submitted the EzIP Draft to IETF just for the purpose of doing due diligence, because we are an US company. I wanted to be sure that all US related organizations got the right of first refusal.

2) The next step is to ask how big is the 240/4 address block and what does it mean when a CPE gets to be this size? Although the second letter of the SPR is spelled out as "public", you likely have realized from our description of what triggered this approach that it may be installed on a private premises just in front of the existing RG. Then, the "P" means "Private". Any two private parties may operate SPRs through the Internet as a telephone modem pair through the PSTN. This is subtle but extremely important, because the whole region (the sub-Internet in the Draft) served by an SPR utilizing one 240/4 block becomes much bigger than a LAN and about one sixteenth of the full IPv4 based Internet! Yet, it is practically transparent to the current Internet fabric. Let's call this as a RAN (Regional Area Network) for facilitating the following discussion.

3) The exciting part of a RAN is that as long as it is compatible with the interface to the serving ER for communicating with the global Internet, the SPR may be constructed with any technology. This gives SPR the freedom of pick and choose desirable characteristics from the current Internet, while rejecting anything that is known to cause issues. This is why we proposed to utilize one of the RANs (sub-Internets) in the EzIP environment for the proposed satellite based Internet which is still in the conceptual stage, with nothing concrete yet.

4) Along this line, the RANs will be perfect test beds for developing new Internet Protocols in real time and in coexistence with existing IPv4, IPv6, etc. based operations, as long as the interface through the single IPv4 address is compatible with current IPv4 packet definition. This can be easily achieved by using the Caching Gateway for the translation of the packet, only at one point.

I would appreciate your thoughts very much.

Abe (2018-09-28 23:05)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

No, you are talking about IPv6 is "coexisting" with IPv4.

When I say "predecessor", I mean that the new one is providing the service in place of the old one. The old one is practically retired or being phased out. There is only one active system at a time that the operator or user sees.

Abe (2018-09-18 22:15)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

1) " yes, I can roughly figure it out. ": Thanks, this is a good starting point for us to move forward. (Maybe I missed it. But I do not recall any positive statement from you previously.)

2) "at 60 bits I'm not convinced it would be big enough,": I am not sure where you get the number "60" from? Perhaps it is just a typo? A full EzIP address has 64 bits, 32 bits from the basic public IPv4 pool and 32 bits from the 240/4 block. This give us a 1BB (4B x 256M) combination. In addition, if you review the derivation / logic analysis in Section 5. that leads to paragraph 5. C., you will see that even a 128 bit address system out of the current IPv4 pool is possible, if we can give up the idea of keeping IP address as personal property. (This is a big philosophical issue that we can discuss about next, separately.) However, since the first two bits of each 32 bit segment are used to distinguish among the four evenly divided parts from the full IPv4 pool, the actual effective total address has only 120 bits. So, instead of 256BBBB combination that IPv6 has, EzIP can only get up to 1BBBB. Since the latter is huge already anyway, I hope we do not need to debate on which one is better based on their size ratio.

3) "It relies on a lot of things after RFC791, including its own 43 page draft.": All 43 pages of the EzIP are just describing in detail about how the 240/4 address may be transported across the Internet, so that it can be used by SPRs at either end of a link. They are NOT disclosing a new method / protocol in the strictest sense at all, according the disciplines that I learned through my engineering training. The key mechanism, the Option Word was defined clearly enough by RFC791 back in 1981-09. There have been many applications of it in the RFC library. To put in another way, the 43 pages of the EzIP Draft are kind like the lecture notes that a professor brings into the classroom to assist the student to understand the topic of the day which is "transporting new address across the Internet for new routers to perform an extra stage of routing". And, the ingredients to be relied upon were covered by earlier lectures.

4) "what, exactly, do you mean by backwards compatibility? ": Allow me to describe what I was taught in the good old days by the biggest telecom company (the previous life of the current AT&T). The "Kosher" definition of a product / system that is backwards compatible to its predecessor is that upon introduction, everyone (from operator to end-user) can continue what each has been doing previously. And, no one can tell something has happened. As time goes on, individuals will realize that the bad aspects of the old system have been eliminated, while those venturous will discover that new capabilities / features have been added. Of course, the designer of the new system is eager to tell everyone what is new. So, there would be normally a brochure of some sort with highlights of the new system distributed to everyone involved during the introduction. So that everyone can enjoy the new system, ASAP.

5) Based on the above outline, how close would you say that IPv6 is backwards compatible to IPv4? Hope you can now appreciate why I am so critical about various aspects of IPv6.

Thanks,

Abe (2018-09-13 23:06)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi

0) Thanks for your comments. However, we must focus on essence, not on philosophy.

1) " No, v6 didn't "ignore" backwards compatibility. v6 CAN'T DO backwards compatibility because v4 doesn't support it. ... ": As I was saying, you seemed to be more interested in word-smith debates on conceptual topics than dealing with the actual technical subject matter. Allow me to repeat this truly "Back to The Future" question. That is, if you were sent back to 1982, could you see that making use of RFC791 and 240/4 address block in the way prescribed by EzIP could expand the IPv4 address pool by 256M fold so that the trigger for considering IPv6 was eliminated?

Note: Unlike the same titled movie that I am referring to that applied certain modern day knowledge and skills, the EzIP scheme does not rely on anything that came after RFC791.

2) All the rest of your opinions are the consequence and variations of not being able to achieve the above. So, let's concentrate on Pt. 1) to establish our baseline first. I will be glad to dig into them afterwards. Thanks.

Regards,

Abe (2018-09-09 16:40)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

1) Re: My Pt. 3) in my last reply: Come to think about it, since IPv4 is more mature, wouldn't it have larger percentage of the traffic going through the Peering arrangements instead of AMS-IX? It is IPv6 having trouble to get Peering agreements that is sending more traffic to AMS-IX, yet is still only about 2% of the total. Then, you are defeating your own argument. Correct?

Abe (2018-09-06 18:12)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

0) It looks that we are getting into word-smith arguments.

1) To save both of our time, let me begin with a question which is stupidly simple. Send yourself back to Year 1982. After you studied the RFC791 and understood the 240/4 address block was "RESERVED" for "Future use". (Both were time marked in 1981-09), you read about EzIP. Could you understand it? If so, how could anything like IPv6 that is built on top of lots of RFCs afterwards be simpler?

2) "it's fundamentally not possible to do the kind of backwards compatibility that you seem to want from v6. v4 doesn't support it.": Of course, IPv6 can't because it is now publicly known that it ignored this basic engineering discipline. As to the second part, I am not sure what you are referring to. The only IPv4 standard that EzIP relies upon is RFC791. So, RFC791 has built-in "Forward Thinking" to support EzIP, while EzIP is backwards compatible to RFC791. Together, they are a pretty "Kosher" pair.

3) " AMS-IX's graphs ... ": You have another interesting argument. I do not know Internet enough to provide counter argument. However, two facts I can supply. First, this article talks about disputes among fairly good sized ISPs about peering arrangements. So, what portion of IPv6 traffic is peered would be significant factor in influencing this discussion. Secondly, I have been talking with fairly high level people in IETF, ICANN & ITU. None of them shot me down from this angle. If you can identify your level of expertise, maybe I will accept your opinion.

4) "Do you have something more reasonable? Because, as I've mentioned, v6 is already about as simple as it can possibly be given the constraints it's working under.": What constraints that IPv6 is working under? In comparison, EzIP gets the job done without relying on any RFC after RFC791. What could be more reasonable?

5) "EzIP also has the exact same deployment difficulties that v6 has (e.g. the need to upgrade everything that needs to interact directly with it) ": Please be specific. I can reiterate the deployment conditions of EzIP for you. The basic configuration is an inline device (SPR) between Internet's ER (Edge Router) and private premises RG (Routing / Residential Router). Nothing in the current Internet setup is affected. For its sub-Internet configuration, it is even more stealthy because an entire region up to the size of Tokyo Metro served by the degenerated SPR appears as one single IoT to the existing Internet. There is really no "difficulty" in deployment to speak of.

6) " Why should we abandon the substantial v6 deployment we have to start over from scratch with something that isn't even better? ": If something isn't delivering what it promised, anytime is a good time to abandon it. It does not matter how much we have sunk into it. The more we wait, the more we waste. I have seen enough cases of swallowing the missteps. IPv6 is just the biggest "public experiment" that has had its chance to demonstrate its wisdom. We have been dragging on by it because there has no alternative to challenge it and it is "too big to fail", until EzIP. And, you have not made clear enough description about why EzIP isn't better, except by statements of your own words.

7) "Also, seriously, you need to learn v6. It's not difficult, I swear. 80% of it is pretty much identical to v4 but with longer addresses. If you have your head around v4 (as you clearly do) ... ": Thanks for the compliment. However, as I professed, I have already stretched my brain cells to learn enough IPv4 to come up with EzIP. I heard enough negative experience from IT professionals that I am not able to get to the IPv6 level just because your encouragement.

8) Again, please come down to the earth by answering my question in Pt. 1) above. Then, we will have a common ground to proceed.

Thanks,

Abe (2018-09-06 16:51)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jellied Eel:

0) Thanks for recapping details of the Internet history. As you correctly pointed out, much of the current Internet situation is the result of commercial efforts. In a perfect world, this openness would be great. But, we need to look at the result of the over three decades of "experiments". Essentially, we have fostered a few monopolies, one in each business sector. Now, they are not only swaying the general public's opinions, but also influencing government regulatory actions, while they are making the money off the consumers without feeling much obligation to their welfare. It is very scary.

1) " it's not really necessary to get the IETF's seal of approval and an RFC. As EzIP's an overlay network, find some operators that will implement it. If it works ": Correct. with the ability to establish a sub-Internet supporting 256M IoTs from a single IPv4 address, the EzIP deployment is pretty much a freelance operation. From the big picture perspective, each sub-Internet is just a CPE (Customer Premises Equipment), not affecting anyone else. So, we can just do it without telling any Internet governing body anything about it. However, this new type of CPE is capable of covering such a large area (as large as Tokyo metro or 75% of countries) that my system engineering training told me that it would be prudent to let the organization in charge of the Internet know about it. So that proper coordination activities may take place along the way. Then, using EzIP or not will be an informed decision. This is why we continued to submit several EzIP Draft versions to IETF, knowing full well that they have been winding down the only Working Group SunSet4 and eventually concluded it this past May. I have made this clear to a senior Internet governing body member in charge of this matter, upon finally getting through to him.

2) On the practical side, we need to inform the general mass of the availability of an alternative, ASAP. So that they may stop the current "suffering", or continue being led by current players. This is a tough challenge, because most people do not have any idea what is going on, besides it seems to be nice to have Internet services on daily basis, while "surprises" happen frequently. Since IETF has "institutionally" decided to go for IPv6, the only organization that may be able to provide some influence is ITU. This is where "politics" comes in. Internet camp has been against ITU participation with various reasons. Since ITU does not have much expertise in the Internet technology, they are at a difficult position to represent member states (in this case, mostly the developing countries, or more plainly, the non US-centric block). I believe that EzIP is the first facility that can clear up the smoke screen at the baseline, so that all parties can be relieved from the urgent tasks (address shortage and cyber security vulnerability) for focusing on the design of a solid next generation Internet, be it an improved IPv6 or a brand new version.

Regards,

Abe (2018-08-31 10:40)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

0) Pardon me to be blunt.

1) Strictly speaking, since IPv6 is not backwards compatible to IPv4 which is the first rule in engineering for improving something that is working, it should have never been allowed to be deployed in the first place. (In the old days when I was working for the largest corporation in the world, such thought would send one out the door and hopefully back to school.) Now that IPv6 had the extra years (20 years of development and 10 years of deployment) to prove itself and still did not work (carrying only about 2% of the total Internet traffic), why should anyone care about safeguarding its welfare anymore?

https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ether-type

2) Do you like to see the repeat of the US government bailing out the banking industry because it was "too big to fail", even though they themselves created the disaster by offering the sub-prime interest rate mortgage that old timers like me have never heard of?

3) Similarly, the auto industry was saved by civilian's money after their executives ran them to the ground while making a lot of money of the business.

4) Not talking about the long term prospect of IPv6, just ask what is happening to security breaches everyday. Are they necessary or the result of someone making money unethically?

5) In a sense, we just have to admit the mistake of the current IPv6 and swallow it, then move on with something more reasonable, instead of continue piling new ""6" related sophistication" onto it that fewer and fewer people can understand. What kind of technical empire are we trying to build?

6) Perpetuating something that does not have enough "Kosher" ground to stand upon is immoral in my book. When there was no alternatives to serve as a mirror to check it, we have to bear it. Once there is yard-stick to measure against, we better apply our true logic minds.

Regards,

Abe (2018-08-30 19:16)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jellied Eel:

1) "(Re your earlier quote, it wasn't me who suggested millions of devices would need updating, that was Alan Brown..) ": Sorry for the misquote. It was a bit difficult for me to keep track of the short messages on this forum because it does not provide individualized notification for response. To minimize the mis-correlation, I tried to open my writing by addressing the person whom wrote the comment that I was responding to. In this case, you caught my cross-correlation among several comments arrived at the same time. My apologies, although my general comment stands.

2) "These proposed interim facilities would afford IPv6 more time to orderly reach the maturity and the availability levels required for delivering a long-term general service. ... So political, rather than practical " : Yes, you are correct! Knowing the controversy of the general environment, the EzIP Draft was phrased as diplomatic as possible in order not to offend others with different mindset.

3) ". ... Once it was decided that the 'fix' was IPv6, activity shifted to mostly making that happen. ... That activity is then mostly driven by the vendors and ops community. ": Yes, the whole thing is incredibly convoluted among technology, business, politics (domestic and international) and personal ego. It has gotten to the point that If we try to dig into any one of these, we can waste an awful amount of energy and resources. So, if we want an alternative solution to this mess, it has to be modular enough for local deployment as the starting point. EzIP provides such facility to establish the Internet's equivalent to PSTN's "Interconnect" business (PABX as one of the main vehicles). Like it or not, Internet governing bodies can not stop someone providing sub-Internet services from one IPv4 public address, based on EzIP. It blows apart many of the Internet marketing banners. This is the punch line that I believe why EzIP is getting the attention from formal organizations now.

4) As I outlined to Nanashi an hour ago, let's focus on the technical merits of the EzIP technique itself, now that both sides (private and government) of the major organizations (IETF & ITU-T) on the subject have been informed of this technology. That is, if there were any fundamental flaw, either side would have shot the EzIP down already, instead of spending resources to evaluate it. From my limited knowledge of the networking, anything beyond RFC791, 240/4 address block, RG-NAT & CG-NAT makes my eyes watery. If we can stay within the boundaries of these few subjects, I am sure that more colleagues will be interested in participating the discussion. All the unnecessary advanced terminologies, especially those related to IPv6 just discourage many by making them feel inadequate or ill-equipped, which is counter-productive.

Thanks,

Abe (2018-08-30 15:24)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Nanashi:

0) I am a person believing in openness, even in debates. This is called mutuality in legal terms (whether lawyers actually do so is a question.). So, before any of us jumping into betting on something, I would like to make sure that everyone is aware of the following:

1) Without disclosing the specifics, I can inform you that a couple of people in the Internet governing bodies who are precisely those involved with this general subject back then have been chewing on the EzIP proposal for near one month without comment, after a couple initial clarification questions, that I would classify as very pointed with substance, yet without vague general objections. Since it is a well-known fact that IETF, etc. have been doing everything to shut down IPv4 related efforts, this situation makes me nervous.

2) By the way, many of the participants on this forum probably are aware of the ongoing debate / dispute between IETF and ITU-T on IPv6 numbering plan, etc. I just got an ITU-T message on my submission of the EzIP Draft that “it was not related with current work items. But the mentioned method is helpful and Q4 experts are encouraged to read it”. This is the result of a very compact online message that I sent to TSB Director due their word restriction in the form. I will follow up with more specific implications.

3) So, to expedite this discussion, I would request everyone to point out any specifics in the EzIP Draft that seems to lead to problems. It would limit the knowledge base to only RFC791 and 240/4 address block, therefore encouraging more participation because no knowledge of IPv6 is required. Fair enough?

Regards,

Abe (2018-08-30 12:43)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jellied Eel:

1) Thanks for the reference to RFC1287. However, not only it predated (1991) so much from Reference [2] (2008) of the EzIP IETF Draft, but also only theoretically suggested extending to 64 bit address system. The former means that the authors of the Reference [2] would definitely know about it because their involvement with the Internet covered much longer period than that. The latter implied a lot of changes to deployed equipment. By treating the additional 32 bit address as IP header payload, EzIP becomes transparent to all existing Internet equipment, CR, ER, RG, etc., hence the Stupidly Simple scheme.

2) As described to "Alan Brown", EzIP is being reviewed by a couple of precisely those people involved back then, even though the only IPv4 activity in IETF was SunSet4 WG which has been "concluded" this past May. They have been chewing on EzIP proposal for near one month without comment, after a couple initial clarification questions, that I would classify as very pointed with substance, without vague general objections. So, to expedite this discussion, may I request you to approach from the similar angle by applying you knowledge in the Internet history? (As I professed in the EzIP Draft document, I know hardly anything about the Internet.)

Thanks,

Abe (2018-08-30 12:03)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jellied Eel:

1) "Getting it out of millions of individually managed devices is a non-starter.": Where in the EzIP IETF Draft did you get this idea? With CG-NAT equivalent service built-in, all current IoTs will continue to function as they are designed for with SPR in place. It is only those IoTs that are enhanced (or factory preset when manufactured) will be able to take advantage of the simple EzIP router service. It is a gradual process at the individual customer's discretion. This is very much analogous to how Dial-Up modem got PSTN to begin serving as the infrastructure for the early Internet operations. (First was bulletin access which is equivalent to Internet's web-access. With enough Dial-Up modems, subscribes began to transfer data directly, or end-to-end connectivity.)

2) What is behind the scene is that the EzIP is best deployed in developing regions or rural areas of developed countries where IPv4 address is definitely in short of supply. They are lacking of not only IoTs, but also infrastructure. So, all the new equipment for them can be factory preset with EzIP-capable OS, F/W and S/W, etc. The urban areas of developed countries with EzIP-unaware IoTs will be the secondary target.

3) In addition, with the sub-Internet deployment configuration, those disadvantaged regions will be enjoying EzIP services more or less autonomously, without much reliance on the developed regions. Then, the latter can play catch-up if desired.

Abe (2018-08-30 11:28)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Alan Brown:

0) You posted consecutive three separate comments which are difficult to respond with the format of this forum. So, I will just start with this one that has the most critical subject that I like to share.

1) "An idea which was looked at and discarded 20 years ago as being a useless kludge as it would buy an extra 5 years at most ": I believe that you are referring to a long series of activities leading to the 2008 idea in Reference [2] of EzIP's IETF Draft document.

A. For sure, if we did not believe that EzIP has surpassed that last hurdle, we would not have mentioned it as "Normative ".

B. Without disclosing the specifics, I can inform you that a couple of precisely those people involved then have been chewing on EzIP proposal for near one month without definitive comments, after a couple initial clarification questions, that I would say very pointed with substance, but not vague general objections.

2) ".....backward compatibility to IPv4. ": As I explained to " Anonymous Coward", What EzIP is doing is taking advantage of the "forward thinking" that was embedded into RFC791 by its author. It is a more exact expression than the common backward compatibility phrase. In essence, it is one level higher thinking process because it was kind of predicting the future.

3) "As for using 240/4.. It would mean deleting it from ISP's 'bogons' filters, ": Pardon me to say that your mindset probably is still in the time frame of Reference [2]. EzIP is using 240/4 in a different way that is why it offers a new approach (touching no existing equipment) that can last quite sometime to come (by expanding the IPv4 address pool by 256M fold).

Hope these help.

Abe (2018-08-30 10:53)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Anonymous Coward:

1) ".... what else could be done? ": One simple alternative is put them all aside and go back to the basics. That is, RFC791 was released back in 1981. If it can resolve the current issue, why get everyone dizzy with all the new protocols that individually does only the job partially while creating other issues?

2) "How can you make a protocol which requires an extended header to be backwards compatible? ": The "Option Word" mechanism does not extending the IP header. It is part of the original format! There is nothing new in terms of defining a new protocol. All TCP/IP stacks should have been routinely handling it all the time (whether it exists in a header or not). Strictly speaking, EzIP is just using the facility in an old protocol. As pointed out in the IETF Draft, there were at least two prior cases (One is dated back in 1992) making use of this mechanism for extending the address pool. To give the credit where is due, what EzIP is using "predicted / imagined" by the original designer of the RFC791.It is called forward-thinking. I am using the backwards compatible expression to just go along with the common daily phrases.

3) "How would you make ip4 stacks magically be able to connect to an expanded space without modification? ": There is no magic. Remember that I brought up the reference to telephony technologies? If you are familiar with how CENTEX and PABX get their phone numbers to effectively expand the PSTN public phone numbers, EzIP numbering scheme is pretty rudimentary. EzIP is not dreaming up a magic block of numbers but only recovering them from the "never land". It was rather perplexing when we discovered that the 240/4 block has been "Reserved for Future Use" since 1981-09, while IETF tried to "SunSet" the IPv4 and eventually "concluded it which means that IPv4 has no future anyway.

Hope these help.

Abe (2018-08-30 08:37)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Anonymous Coward:

0) Thanks for your comments.

1) Yes, the challenge for IPv6 is that it is not an incremental change because it is not even backward compatible to IPv4. So, the cost is higher than reasonable. And, it does not promise enough benefits to justify the cost.

2) However, EzIP does not have your concerns. EzIP is formulated with not only backward compatibility to IPv4 by relying on only RFC791, but also incremental deployment in mind. It was designed from system architecture, not technology, point of view. And, the implementation has only one functional module, called SPR (Semi-Public Router) that is intended to be installed inline between an ER and the subscriber premises that it serves. Furthermore, the SPR consists of not only the eventual simple router, but also the CG-NAT function for transitional support of serving EzIP-unaware IoTs. So, the SPR may be installed wherever needed, not relying on any other parts of the Internet. In other words, all of the concerns identified by you have been designed out of the SPR.

3) The above may sound too idealistic to be explained over this kind of short forum chats. To expedite this dialog, allow me to share my LinkedIn profile. It would provide you some idea about the disciplines that I was trained for, thus the list of unspoken criteria applied to the EzIP project:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chen-abraham-b7a918/

I look forward to your comments.

Regards,

Abe (2018-08-29 22:48)

Re: IPv6 was released 22 years ago

Hi, katrinab:

On this article, I introduced a separate thread entitled "IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly" reporting a purely IPv4 based solution called EzIP that can expand each IPv4 address by 256M (Million) fold.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space-03

You may want to have a look at it:

Abe (2018-08-29 17:46)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Lee D:

1) "Measuring traffic size against queries is very disproportionate traffic to compare.": If your mindset is from this angle, we shall not debate on which protocol is in more use.

2) Let's not get too deep into technologies. What I did not say (even the Draft only touched the surface) is what is the implication of one single IPv4 address able to serve an area of 256M IoTs. This opens up the PSTN equivalent of "Interconnect" business in the Internet.

3) That is, not only a government, but any individual can provide Internet services in a local area in parallel to the current global version. This is the type of open market competition that big Internet players have been bragging about knowing full well that there was no resource to do so. Now, there is. Not just a few, but there will be millions or even more competitors!

4) There is even a modern day analogy to the above. That is, the electric utility grid is supporting the islands of renewable energy generated by homes and businesses.

Abe (2018-08-29 16:39)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Ken:

1) You might have misread the EzIP architecture. The only implementation module is the SPR (Semi-Public Router) that is to form a full spherical layer of simple routers as inline devices between the ER (Edge Router) and subscriber premises. The existing components do not need be EzIP-aware, but continue the operations as if they were under the current CG-NAT configuration.

2) Only if an EzIP-capable IoT initiates a session with EzIP header will the connection service be upgraded to EzIP router mode.

3) So, we are not going to modify any existing Internet components including IoTs in the field.

4) Perhaps the diagram in page 8 of the following would provide a better picture:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf

Abe (2018-08-29 16:13)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, Jelled Eel:

1) Thanks for the information about the IPv4 address pool swamp history. Yes, I was fully aware of them and knew it was so convoluted that it is practically impossible to dig into. So, we decided to pick the 240/4 block. It was kind in the "never land" since no router is allowed to touch it. And, it obviously is a joke to keep it still "Reserved for Future" while IETF is doing everything to kill IPv4.

2) By designing the SPR as a full spherical layer of new routers between Internet's ER and subscriber premises, SPR will not intermingle with existing routers. There is no need to modify any existing routers.So, your concerns may not apply.

Abe (2018-08-29 15:56)

Re: IPv4 Address Pool Has Been Expanded Significantly

Hi, philnc:

0) Maybe you can answer my puzzlement.

1) That is, where NAT64 or NAT46 is positioned, isn't it ideal to put a caching proxy as a gateway serving the same purpose for a block of subscribers that an IAP (Internet Access Provider) is serving? This will leave the current IoTs alone, and let the transition move at its own pace.

2) In our work, we identified that a caching proxy would serve the purpose of translating IPv4 public address used in the Internet and the EzIP extension address used in the sub-Internet, because the two port configuration.

3) What was the reason holding IAPs from doing so? Were they so aggressive that they wanted to push all IoTs to be IPv6 compliant right away?

Thanks,

Abe (2018-08-29 15:37)

OK, this time it's for real: The last available IPv4 address block has gone

Making Use of IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

You may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below about our proposal for expanding IPv4 address pool, etc.:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

It should provide some material for furthering the dialog.

Abe (2020-08-29 16:33 EDT)

Stern Vint Cerf blasts techies for lackluster worldwide IPv6 adoption

Making Use of the IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

You may like to have a look at the feasibility demonstration report below.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

It should provide some material for furthering the discussion.

Abe (2020-08-29 12:22 EDT)

Re: There Might Be An Alternative

Hi, Charles 9:

1) Re: Ur. Pt. 3 "ZFS": I just had a chance to look at the Wikipedia description of this Sun Microsystems 128-bit filesystem. It reminds me of an even much bigger address system proposed by RFC1385 that is listed as Reference [11] of the EzIP Draft. If you look at its Figure 1 on page 4 and then the description of "EIP Extension Length: 8 bits" on page 4/5, you will find that it was proposing an address system that could be up to 256 bytes long, which would be 16 times of the IPv6's 128 bit system! As commented in the EzIP Draft, the RFC1385 approach required modifications to CRs (Core Routers) which appeared to be non-trivial. It sounds to me that the IPv6 implementation may be even more complex, because I never heard about upgrading an IPv4 router to be IPv6 capable via S/W or F/W download process.

Abe (2018-09-03 10:02)

Re: There Might Be An Alternative

Hi, Charles 9:

1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1.: From my perspective, IPv4 is the "liter" and IPv6 is the "pint" in terms of how much each is carrying the load (Internet traffic / beer):

https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ether-type

2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2.: Let's do not get into "the newer is the better" mentality. When dealing with the same task, "the simpler is the better". The beauty of great engineering is to get the job done with minimum resources. I often like to paraphrase an originally politically incorrect expression, KISS for this kind of situation: "Keep It Stupidly Simple". To me, bragging about doing the same job with super fancy and over capable tools does not impress me, but exactly on the contrary.

3) Re: Ur. Pt. 3.: Again, if we can get the job done with 32-bit system, why go to 128-bit? I must profess that the former is about my mental limitation, while the later throws me into the dungeon. Most of people that I came across are not shy about admitting this. The fact of the matter is that IPv6 unnecessarily created a long numbering system that get most people lost, and then begins to make use the "rich bits" for purposes other than addressing which increases the cyber security vulnerability. This is an angle that no one has talked about yet.

Regards,

Abe (2018-08-31 13:07)

Re: There Might Be An Alternative

Hi, Nanashi:

1) Appreciate your efforts. However, I am afraid that you are still looking at the EzIP from the vantage point of your IPv6 knowledge, What you really need to do is pretend that you only know RFC791 and walked into the "never land" of 240/4 address block that was "Reserved for Future use" for all these times. Can you see the EzIP scheme? In a sense, this is a real life "back to the future" case.

2) As I wrote in one of my comments, we are really not talking about "backwards compatibility", but making use of the "forward-thinking" of the RFC791 author. This is the art of system engineering that not only sorts out the current situations, but also lays out some ground work to cover the imaginary future, whatever it may be.

3) "I went to a lot of effort to explain to you why it's not different; now it's your turn.": Unfortunately, standing at my disadvantage point, I have not gotten a clue of your explanation at all. Allow me to explain:

"the draft really does describe a system that is largely the same as IPv6 with 6to4.": As I professed that I know barely enough about networking to figure out EzIP. IPv6 is way above my head. The four time address length already threw me into the dungeon, let alone the new header format and beyond. that is, anything touches IPv6 is different from IPv4 for me, unless you can describe it. So, I am hopeless to understand your explanations packed with IPv6 terminologies. I am very honest about this. Please see my LInkedIn profile below to see where I came from:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chen-abraham-b7a918/

4) So, I can't accept your challenge to understand what you have been talking about even if I tried very hard. On the other hand, one of my favorite professors told me that "if you can not explain what you think you know to a random person from the street, you do not really understand your subject yet.". I strive to follow this teaching throughout my life on everything I do. On the other hand, I am not shy to admit that I don't know or can't do something. So, allow me to reverse the challenge to you, since you know both IPv6 and IPv4. Do not just throw terminologies at me, but verbalize them in descriptions and use graphics if needed. To do this more efficiently and without burdening other colleagues on this forum, let's do this offline. You can reach me through the author's eMail address in the EzIP Draft.

5) For example, I hinted about the parallelism between PSTN and Internet at some point. You can find a graphic presentation of the overall system architectures with description in page 12 of the following whitepaper:

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf

Thanks in advance for you kind patience.

Abe (2018-08-30 16:16)

You. Drop and give me 20... per cent IPv6 by 2023, 80% by 2025, Uncle Sam tells its IT admins after years of slacking

Making Use of the IPv4 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Below are two piece of recent information to share with you:

1) This is a discussion thread about the state of the IPv6 based on publicly available statistics. It was started by an Ericsson AB researcher shortly before his retirement. The findings are a very surprising, if not shocking.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) This is a report on a possible use of the long-reserved but hardly-used IPv4 240/4 netblock and its implications.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

3) We are keenly aware that our approach is rather unorthodox. However, please consider the proposed architecture as a newly created full spherical layer of cyberspace consisting of RANs (Regional Area Networks), between the current Internet proper and the subscriber premises. Each RAN is defined around one reusable 240/4 netblock. Regarded as a private / independent environment, much of the existing Internet protocols, conventions, restrictions, etc. may be repurposed from a revised perspective in the RAN.

4) Hope you will enjoy exploring this new facility.

Feedback will be much appreciated.

Abe (2020-08-24 10:18 EDT)

It could be 'five to ten years' before the world finally drags itself away from IPv4

Making Use of the 240/4 Netblock

Hi, Gareth:

0) This is a very intriguing analysis. Below are URLs to two current activities that may go with yours:

1) This is a discussion about the state of the IPv6 based on publicly available statistics.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) This is a report on the possible use of the long-reserved but hardly-used 240/4 netblock and its implications.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

3) We are keenly aware that our approach is rather unorthodox. However, please consider the proposed architecture as a newly created full spherical layer of cyberspace consisting of RANs (Regional Area Networks), between the current Internet proper and the subscriber premises. Each RAN is defined around one reusable 240/4 netblock. Regarded as a private / independent environment, much of the existing Internet protocols, conventions, restrictions, etc. may be repurposed from a revised perspective in the RAN.

4) Hope you will enjoy exploring this new facility.

Feedback will be much appreciated.

Abe (2020-08-22 11:26 EDT)

Asia’s internet registry APNIC finds about 50 million unused IPv4 addresses behind the sofa

Making Use of the 240/4 Netblock

Dear Colleagues:

0) Thank you all for the generous guidance, suggestion, comment, etc. through the past discussions on this forum. Below are URLs to two updates:

1) This is a discussion about the state of the IPv6 based on publicly available statistics.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

2) This is a report on the possible use of the long-reserved but hardly-used 240/4 netblock and its implications.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf

3) We are keenly aware that our approach is rather unorthodox. However, please consider the proposed architecture as a newly created full spherical layer of cyberspace consisting of RANs (Regional Area Networks), between the current Internet proper and the subscriber premises. Each RAN is defined around one 240/4 netblock. Regarded as a private / independent environment, much of the existing Internet protocols, conventions, restrictions, etc. may be repurposed from a revised perspective in the RAN.

4) Hope you will enjoy exploring this new facility.

Feedback will be much appreciated.

Abe (2020-08-22 09:59 EDT)

We are absolutely, definitively, completely and utterly out of IPv4 addresses, warns RIPE

Google's IPv6 Statistics Peaked?

Hi, Anonymous Coward:

You may find that the following analysis by Ericsson Research intriguing.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/

Abe (2019-11-30 16:22)

Get ready for a literal waiting list for European IPv4 addresses. And no jumping the line

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

1) Re: Ur. > 3): I rest my case.

Abe (2019-09-11 16:08)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

1) "https://labs.apnic.net/measureipv6/.": How did you find this? Could you please explain how does it work? It appears to be a somewhat manual operation. If so, it would be very difficult to get the volume of test data implied by in the statistics that I shared.

2) "AMS-IX's graphs are obviously flow statistics from their network only.": Yes, As I stated, I was told that this is the largest publicly available statistics. AMS-IX is the third largest IXS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size

and their total traffic volume about 4 Tbps is shown at:

https://stats.ams-ix.net/index.html

So, statistics from AMS-IX is the best possible source for getting some idea about the behavior of the overall Internet traffic.

3) What is the traffic volume that your statistics is based upon?

Abe (2019-09-09 00:08)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

1) "the percentage of clients that hit their measurement servers over v6 .": Where and how did you get this impression of a limited scope? It is true that this kind of restriction applies to the commonly known "Google's IPv6 traffic statistics", but not the ones that I cited. As far as I know, both of these are really based on "as much overall worldwide as possible" Internet traffic, not any subset of something.

2) I can not tell you my source at this juncture, because the sensitivity. But, I was referred to these by a well-known and very knowledgeable person whom I requested for worldwide statistics to get some insight of the IPv6 status. He stated that these are the only publicly available data that are constantly collected from the largest possible base (i.e., not necessarily everything, but close). If you look at the organizations that are sponsoring these, you will get some idea why they can do these.

Abe (2019-09-07 16:09)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

1) " already have wide deployment.": Please have a look at the following constantly updated worldwide "deployment" statistics. It seems that we are not close to critical-mass yet:

https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6

2) In addition, the following actual traffic distribution is even move enlightening (It is hard to see the IPv6 contribution with the scale used in the graphics. You need to read the numbers in the tables below them.):

https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html

Abe (2019-09-06 09:07)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

Yes, I did recall you read the Draft previously (last year?), That was why my initial comment this time was phrased to acknowledge so. The fact of the matter is that the Draft is a formal document that tried to cover the technical aspects of the EzIP proposal from all bases. Although several senior networking colleagues and marketing people got the message, it turned out to be hard for at least two general categories of audience, those who do not know communication at all, and those who are too involved with IPv6. We learned this through various feedback situations, not just from this forum. So, the new presentation was distilled through the technical twists and then just focuses on conveying high level concepts. I believe that if we can to reason through this high level of perspective, then the technical details / specifics will be easier to discuss. Thanks.

Abe (2019-09-01 10:56)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Nanashi:

1) It would do everyone a big favor if you could browse through the presentation. It has been streamlined from the earlier version which attempted to be diplomatic but resulted in too many logistic turns that clouded the perspectives. The current version in response to audience reactions has nothing to do with any concepts related to V6. In fact, it is a simple RFC791 implementation (then, degenerated to the basics) whose timeline was around 1981!

2) In addition, please check the credentials of the authors of the only other Normative Reference cited by the IETF Draft. Ten years ago, they were just one small step shy of what we now propose.

Thanks,

Abe (2019-08-31 16:49)

Re: We need a new approach

Hi, Alan:

0) It looks that the IPv6 vs IPv4 arena is still very much active. Allow me to update you about our efforts in not only prolonging the life of the IPv4, but also transcending it to be the backbone / infrastructure for multiple new collaborating worldwide digital communication systems.

1) Please have a look at the following presentation file. The graphics pages should be sufficient for providing you a pretty good idea about the scheme.

https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/EzIPenhancedInternet.pdf

2) Appendix C. of the following IETF Draft describes what we have done and where we are.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space-05

3) We look forward to your thoughts, comments, etc.

Abe (2019-08-27 17:45)

Russia threatens to set up its 'own internet' with China, India and pals – let's take a closer look

A Way to Achieve the Same Goal Without Fights

We ventured into studying the IPv4 address depletion challenge a few years ago leading to a surprise solution that we nicknamed it EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4). A proposal has been submitted to IETF:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space-03

Among several useful benefits, the most direct consequence is that EzIP enables the establishment of regional sub-Internets, each capable of serving up to 256M (Millon) IoTs, covering the largest city (Tokyo Metro) or 75% of countries from just one IPv4 public address. This can realize the CIR (Country-based Internet Registry) model from ITU a few years ago, even without establishing a CIR organization.

If a government is not interested, private enterprises can make use of this facility to provide "local Internet" services. Either way, this will be a parallel facility to the existing "global Internet" model, so that citizens will have the flexibility to choose.

Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated.

Abe (2018-09-16 17:30)

IPv6 growth is slowing and no one knows why. Let's see if El Reg can address what's going on

Re: What are they measuring here?

Hi, Number6:

The following could provide a clue. It has been like this for the past few years while that I have been monitoring it. The % of Internet traffic carried by IPv6 appears to be creeping up from 2% to 3%. Of course, it would be lower in the earlier days.

https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ether-type

Regards,

Abe (2018-09-10 10:37)