nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201503.AYC
From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 17:00:45 -0500
Dear Rubens: 0) Very good question. It is right to the point!1) Initially, we thought that we were doing conventional protocol development engineering that was triggered by our curiosity about why IPv4 address pool was depleted. So, IETF Draft was the natural place to report what we were doing.
2) As time went on, it became evident that our scheme was rather unorthodox. That is, it was surprisingly simpler than any other known techniques. As well, the benefits were more and better than we could have dreamed for. At the same time, developed countries such as US where I was in, were not in any material need for IPv4 addresses, yet promoting IPv6. Not being able to sort out this contradiction, it was necessary to keep a continuous public record as IETF Draft revisions of EzIP evolution as we continued to refine our scheme which had turned into a concise system engineering solution, or almost appeared to be a marketing trick.
3) In a sense, we have been purposely publishing our work on the web (beyond IETF Draft) to invite critiques. So far, we have not received any explicit feedback pointing to its flaws, while there have been more than a couple subtle confirmations from rather senior Internet experts. I am sure that you would understand that we can not disclose the latter on our own. Nevertheless, they do enforce our confidence in the EzIP plan.
4) In anticipation of your next question, I would like to add the following. To be sure that our discovery is protected from being claimed by others and then its fair use discouraged, the essence of the EzIP concept was submitted to US Patent Office and has been granted with US Pat. No. 11,159,425. This assures that EzIP may be openly discussed to reach as much general public as possible.
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 <aychen () avinta com> wrote:Dear Mark: 0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion. 1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved.If IETF does not need to be involved, why have you submitted 12 versions of your Internet draft to IETF ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/ Rubens
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Current thread:
- Re: ipv4/25s and above, (continued)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Sam Kretchmer (Nov 16)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Mark Tinka (Nov 17)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Joe Maimon (Nov 17)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Mark Tinka (Nov 17)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 18)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Mark Tinka (Nov 19)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Rubens Kuhl (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201503.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Tom Beecher (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC bzs (Nov 21)
- Fwd: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Rubens Kuhl (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Fred Baker (Nov 26)
- Re: ipv4/25s and above Joe Maimon (Nov 17)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC David Conrad (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)