nanog mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:23:50 -0400
Hi, Pascal:
0)    As the good old saying stated: "A picture is worth one thousand words." Let's take advantage of such a teaching.
1)    Focusing at just the text before and after Figure 1 of your below draft, I found: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-01
    A.    " In the analogy of a building, */the ground floor would be the Interne/*t, and each additional floor would be */another IPv4 realm/*.  ...  analog to */the full IPv4/**/addressing /*that is available in each realm.  ": Unless there is certain hidden refinement that I could not decipher, the combination of the three phrases highlighted above by me seems to refer to the entire IPv4 netblock, addresses and practices, etc., all inclusive. (By the way, the phrase "ground floor" appears to contradict the "(current IPv4 Internet)" label in the figure that is on the top floor (realm 1) of a building. Unless, you are presenting an underground building? But, we can regard this as a minor typo.)
    B.    " ... A single /24 IPv4 prefix assigned allows for*/> 250 times the capacity of the Internet as we know it /*...   ": Are you visualizing that your YADA / YATT draft proposes creating >250 layers of cyberspace, each with the same capacity of the current Internet? If so, it will be fantastic. Then, how can you physically deploying that many layers, each fully covering the entire globe, yet without stepping on one another's toes (the identical IP addresses packed >250 deep)? That is, I failed to imagine what kind of mechanism that you have for isolating the layers, such as populating people accordingly. 

Please clarify.

Regards,


Abe (2022-04-02 12:22 EDT)






On 2022-04-02 04:56, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:


That does not need to be long, Abe.
There’s no minimal interval between version. I already published 01… And I do not have a special address format beyond what’s in the draft already. It’s only IPv4 and IPv6. No new address format. Just assigned ranges, and well known IIDs.
To your point: the addresses in each realm are the full IPv4 that we know and they cannot talk directly between realms. They are indeed isolated. Nodes in different floors can only communicate through the shaft. Think of a human and a stairwell. The physical space reserved for the stair well at each level is the same.  What people do with the rest of the space is their own. All addresses and AS numbers are reusable.
I do not see you image of a sphere. My image of  a sphere is IPv6, that contains all the IPv4 “planes”, the shaft, and all the air in between.
You design uses the internet as shaft if you like. In that we differ. YADA leaves the internet as is, and allows to build other internets that cannot leak in one another. But participating nodes can communicate through the shaft.
If end nodes do not participate, then a stateful Nat is still needed. For most homes that means an upgrade of the stateful NAT in the gateway so the public side has a YATT format, and DNS snooping to provide a A record inside. Same for PLATs. For most servers, that means an update in the load balancer, and a NAT if there was none, to allow to speak to other realms. Whatever 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 <aychen () avinta com>
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 23:45
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com> 
*Cc:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC 

Hi, Pascal:
1)    " ... for the next version. ...   ":    I am not sure that I can wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I asked for an IP packet header example of your proposal is to visualize what do you mean by the model of "realms and shafts in a multi-level building". The presentation in the draft sounds okay, because the floors are physically isolated from one another. And, even the building is isolated from other buildings. This is pretty much how PBX numbering plan worked.
2)    When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, however, you are essential talking about covering the entire surface of the earth. Then, there is no isolated buildings with isolated floors to deploy your model anymore. There is only one spherical layer of physical earth surface for you to use as a realm, which is the current IPv4 deployment. How could you still have multiple full IPv4 address sets deployed, yet not seeing their identical twins, triplets, etc.? Are you proposing multiple spherical layers of "realms", one on top of the other?
2)    When I cited the DotConnectAfrica graphic logo as a visual model for the EzIP deployment over current IPv4, I was pretty specific that each RAN was tethered from the current Internet core via one IPv4 address. We were very careful about isolating the netblocks in terms of which one does what. In other words, even though the collection of RANs 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, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

        Makes sense, Abe, for the next version.

        Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT
        device can only talk to another IPv6 device, where that other
        device may use a YATT address or any other IPv6 address.

        But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby
        steps for those who want to.

        Keep safe;

        Pascal

        *From:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
        <mailto:aychen () avinta com>
        *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
        *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
        <mailto:vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Pascal Thubert
        (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com> <mailto:pthubert () cisco com>;
        Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com> <mailto:streinerj () gmail com>
        *Cc:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org> <mailto:nanog () nanog org>
        *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
        supported re: 202203261833.AYC

        Hi, Pascal:

        What I would appreciate is an IP packet header
        design/definition layout, word-by-word, ideally in bit-map
        style, of an explicit presentation of all IP addresses
        involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the second
        realm. This will provide a clearer picture of how the real
        world implementation may look like.

        Thanks,

        Abe (2022-04-01 09:48)

        On 2022-04-01 08:49, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:

            As I understand: “IPv4 Realms” between “Shaft” should be
            capable to have a plain IPv4 header (or else why all of
            these).

            Then Gateway in the Shaft should change headers (from IPv4
            to IPv6).

            Who should implement this gateway and why? He should be
            formally appointed to such an exercise, right?

            Map this 2 level hierarchy to the real world – you may
            fail with this.

            Ed/

            *From:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
            [mailto:pthubert () cisco com <mailto:pthubert () cisco com>]
            *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 3:41 PM
            *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
            <mailto:vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Justin Streiner
            <streinerj () gmail com> <mailto:streinerj () gmail com>;
            Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> <mailto:aychen () avinta com>
            *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 that some things will
            have to be planned between stake holders, and that it will
            not be easy.

            But you know what the French say about “impossible”.

            Or to paraphrase Sir Arthur, now that we have eliminated
            all the impossible transition scenarios, whatever remains…

            There will be YADA prefixes just like there are root DNS.
            To be managed by different players as you point out. And
            all routable within the same shaft.

            Keep safe;

            Pascal

            *From:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
            *Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 14:32
            *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com>;
            Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com>; Abraham Y. Chen
            <aychen () avinta com>
            *Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
            not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

            Hi Pascal,

            In general, your idea to create a hierarchy is good.

            In practice, it would fail because you have created a
            virtual hierarchy that does not map to any administrative
            border. Who should implement gateways for the “Shaft”? Why?

            If you would appoint Carrier as the Shaft responsible then
            it is not enough bits for Shaft.

            If you would appoint Governments as the Shaft responsible
            then would be a so big scandal that you would regret the
            proposal.

            Hence, I do not see proper mapping for the hierarchy to
            make YADA successful.

            Eduard

            *From:* NANOG
            [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org
            <mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org>]
            *On Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
            *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2022 2:26 PM
            *To:* Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com>; Abraham Y.
            Chen <aychen () avinta com>
            *Cc:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
            *Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
            not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

            For the sake of it, Justin, I just published
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.

            The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range
            in an IPv4-only world. For some people that might be
            enough and I’m totally fine with that.

            Keep safe;

            Pascal

            *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com () nanog org>
            *On Behalf Of *Justin Streiner
            *Sent:* dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
            *To:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
            *Cc:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
            *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still
            not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

            Abe:

            To your first point about denying that anyone is being
            stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being
            able to communicate via IPv4.  I have seen no evidence of
            that.

            I'm not familiar with the process of submitting 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
            <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

                1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4
                ...     ": After all these discussions, are you still
                denying this basic issue? For example, there has not
                been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4
                enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you
                know the way, please make it public. I am sure that
                many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.

        Image removed by sender.
        
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>

                

        Virus-free. www.avast.com
        
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>





--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: