[members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world

Dear Elad,

> Any home-modem will not need to be updated (no matter if it is L2 or L3).

Ok, let's proceed with your idea: what happens to a service that is only reachable by IPv4+? It will only be reachable by native IPv4+ or by an NAT solution, right?

Why re-invent the wheel? There is already IPv6 available, why should someone spend time in developing a NAT for IPv4+? What's the benefit? Affected end-users (with IPv4/IPv6 Dual-Stack devices) will never be able to reach a IPv4+ address (if there is no NAT available).

This makes it useless.

And regarding your UDP "handshake" for MTU: There are MANY networks around the world which breaks UDP and there are also many situations where you filter UDP. What is your idea for such cases?

Best regards
Jürgen





Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Elad Cohen
Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 12:52
An: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk>; Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <gert at space.net>; members-discuss at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world

Any home-modem will not need to be updated (no matter if it is L2 or L3).

Regarding the EOL list you provided, Cisco will be part of the round table (just like any other routing equipment manufacturer) and firmware upgrades will be provided by any round table member even for its EOL products so the deployment of IPv4+ will be possible.

Respectfully,
Elad
________________________________________
From: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:48 PM
To: Elad Cohen <mailto:elad at netstyle.io>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world 
 
You keep saying "Any home modem will not need to be updated at all" and you keep saying switches are L2.
My home modem is a L3 device.
There are a lot of L3 switches which have hit end of life in lots of data centres around the world.
Regardless of how many times you SAY these are L2 switches, they are not.
 
By way of example, here is just a handful of Cisco's EOL Layer 3 (IP based) devices which would need some kind of upgrade or replacement:
 
Cisco 6000 Series IP DSL Switches
Cisco Blade Switches for Dell
Cisco Blade Switches for HP
Cisco Catalyst 3750 Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 3750-X Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 3560 Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 3560-C Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 3560-X Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 2960 Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 2960-S Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 2960-SF Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 2955 Series Switches
Cisco Catalyst 2360 Series Switches
Cisco Energy Management Suite
Cisco ME 4600 Series Multiservice Optical Access Platform
Cisco ME 3800X Series Carrier Ethernet Switch Routers
Cisco ME 3600X Series Ethernet Access Switches
Cisco ME 3400E Series Ethernet Access Switches
Cisco ME 2600X Series Ethernet Access Switches
Cisco Nexus 4000 Series Switches
Cisco Nexus 1100 Series Cloud Services Platforms
Cisco Small Business 500 Series Stackable Managed Switches
Cisco Small Business 100 Series Unmanaged Switches
Cisco Switch Modules for IBM
Cisco Virtual Application Cloud Segmentation (VACS) Services
Citrix NetScaler 1000V
 
Remember, this is only Cisco and only a partial list.
You will need to add Juniper, HP, Dell, D-Link, Alcatel, Foundry, Marconi, Nortel and many many more.
You will also need to update EVERY distro of Linux, Unix, Windows and other more bespoke operating systems.
 
Best,
Stuart Willet.
 
 
 
From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad at netstyle.io] 
Sent: 26 April 2020 11:18
To: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
 
I already answered to you one minute ago. No software update will need to be done to any modem, I wrote it many many times but you ignored it - so please don't blame it on me.
 
Here is again:
Any home modem will not need to be updated at all
 
Respectfully,
Elad
________________________________________
From: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Elad Cohen <mailto:elad at netstyle.io>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world 
 
Show me how to "software update" my BT modem to accept iPv4 (rhetorical)
 
I'm sorry, but you have had plenty of feedback from lots of people.
You refuse to see the obvious, nobody is going to spend the man hours required.
 
I am now respectfully bowing out, I have wasted enough time on this.
 
Please feel free to tell people I am part of an IPv6 conspiracy against you, but also accept that this is nonsense.
 
 
Best regards,
 
Stuart Willet.
 
From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad at netstyle.io] 
Sent: 26 April 2020 11:07
To: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
 
But you didn't understand IPv4+ based on what you are writing or you are trying to influence the readers...
 
First fully understand something, then decide if you are against it or not.
 
Regarding:
"you want millions of dollars spent on millions of upgrades for a handful of new IPv4 addresse"
 
No hardware upgrades will be need, only software updates and the software developers (operating system vendors and routing equipment manufacturers) will receive incentives. End-users / companies / organizations - will need to invest nothing.
 
Respectfully,
Elad
 
________________________________________
From: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:03 PM
To: Elad Cohen <mailto:elad at netstyle.io>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world 
 
You have not convinced me, I make no money from IPv6.
I have no incentive to push IPv6 or downplay IPv4 or IPV4+
 
Your idea is flawed and that's that.
 
 
Sorry,
 
Stuart Willet.
 
From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad at netstyle.io] 
Sent: 26 April 2020 11:00
To: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
 
Stuart,
 
The people that responded are not reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of internet companies and internet organizations - which needs IPv4. 
 
Each and every person that I wasn't able to convince as you wrote is an active deployer of IPv6 and earns his money from deploying IPv6.
 
Respectfully,
Elad
 
________________________________________
From: Stuart Willet (primary) <mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:54 PM
To: Elad Cohen <mailto:elad at netstyle.io>; Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world 
 
Elad,
 
You are now making yourself look a little paranoid and silly.
 
 
Respectfully,
 
Stuart Willet.
 
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen
Sent: 26 April 2020 10:53
To: Sander Steffann <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: Gert Döring <mailto:gert at space.net>; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
 
Sander is taking part in an illegal cyber influence operation against me.
 
Sander, instead of lying and acting like a coward with other interests, go ahead and ask me publicly any question that you would like regarding IPv4+ and you will be answered.
 
Respectfully,
Elad
 
 
________________________________________
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:40 PM
To: Elad Cohen
Cc: Gert Döring; mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world 
 
Hi,

> What being done here is a cyber influence operation against me, after I'm only trying to do good to the community.
> 
> Sander, you didn't mention any flaws,  can you please write them here and I will answer each and every one of them ?

This is not the place Elad. Many flaws have been pointed out to you already, but you just dismiss them. Take this to the IETF, you'll feel right at home. *

Cheers,
Sander

* for those who don't follow the IETF, there is an appeal ongoing about IETF chairs and ADs ignoring inconvenient questions and objections