[members-discuss] **SPAM** Re: 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!


I am working for a small ISP in Germany with providing internet to 
businesses, operating datacenters and FTTH/FTTC. You have not won me 
over either.


I have the following remarks to your proposal:


- You say, that there is simply the reserved bit has to be switched to 
"1". Simply changing a value which has ever been "0" could and will 
break things on unclean implementations of the IPv4 protocol. So even if 
devices should not need updates, they could see some unexpected 
header-value in there IPv4+ packets just flowing through.

- You are stressing automatic updates of the OSs in the world. In a 
perfect world you may have the posibility to get updates and patches 
fast to the end-users. But this is not. You have old computer/versions 
or simply companies and peoiple, who are not updating there software 
regualarily (i.e. to not break things / test updates thoeoughly)

- You are relying on the power of the end user, if they are unable to 
reach a site. This is the problem with v6 at the moment also. The 
content providers are not going to be in danger, that their customers 
are unable to reach their site. If that would be the case, Google or 
Facebook could just switch of there IPv4 connectivity and only be 
reachable via v6. But there is money involved.


You have requested comments on your idea and you have got them.


I would be interessted in your benefit from such an implementation? You 
will not get new IPv4(+)-addresses within the next two months. As 
already stated, the RIPE can not implement this. Why are you unable to 
be happy with IPv6? Where are your problems?


We have redesigned our network 4 years ago and we have no problems with 
IPv6.


Matthias


Am 26.04.20 um 11:58 schrieb Elad Cohen:
> Stuart,
>
> I don't have any trouble convincing you, 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) <stu at safehosts.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:46 PM
> *To:* Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io>; Sander Steffann 
> <sander at steffann.nl>; Gert Döring <gert at space.net>
> *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net <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
>
> Respectfully Elad, you are pushing your idea without considering the 
> consequences.
>
> There is no operation against you, we are just trying to point out the 
> flaws in your idea.
>
> Just consider this, you are currently speaking with the group that 
> will inevitably be the ones to roll out your idea. If you are having 
> this much trouble convincing us this is a good idea, how would the 
> rest of the world hold up?
>
> You keep saying this will work with existing IPv4 but it simply won’t 
> will it.
>
> I have a home internet connection provided by BT. They give me an IPv4 
> and an IPv6 address.
>
> Traffic preferences IPv6 where it can.
>
> How would IPv4+ be added in this scenario? Simple, a firmware update 
> would need to be made on my router. And every router for every other 
> BT customer.
> Same will apply for VirginMedia et-al.
>
> You keep saying it won’t be needed unless there is NAT, but most home 
> routers use NAT.
>
> Please explain to me how you think Microsoft are going to spend 
> millions on your upgrade for zero benefit to them?
> Please explain how ISP’s will recall and replace millions of set top 
> boxes and modems?
> Please explain how upgrades are going to be done on end of life 
> switches and routers?
>
> Please explain how every DNS server on the planet will be upgraded 
> seamlessly?
>
> Seriously, if you are having this hard a time winning us over, you 
> don’t stand a chance.
>
> Best,
>
> Stuart Willet.
>
> *From:*members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On 
> Behalf Of *Elad Cohen
> *Sent:* 26 April 2020 10:37
> *To:* Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>; Gert Döring <gert at space.net>
> *Cc:* 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
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> 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 ?
>
> First there was the IPv6 fans and now there are the Spamhaus fans.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Elad
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net 
> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> on behalf of Sander 
> Steffann <sander at steffann.nl <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:28 PM
> *To:* Gert Döring <gert at space.net <mailto:gert at space.net>>
> *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> 
> <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
>
> Hi,
>
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:51:13AM +0200, Bruno Cordioli wrote:
> >> I think it is appropriate to close this discussion here.
> >> Elad will eventually submit his proposed al RIPE meeting or he'll 
> write a
> >> RFC.
> >
> > Basically, this.
>
> Seconded
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Overall, as long as no implementations can be provided (source code on
> > github etc) this sounds like a somewhat cheap shot to make people 
> believe
> > you're going to solve their IPv4 problems if they just vote you to the
> > NCC executive board.  And I hope the NCC members are smart enough to not
> > vote based on glorious promises, but on track record, provable 
> background,
> > etc.
>
> I have contacted Elad off-list and shown him many fallacies in his 
> design. He insisted implementation and deployment of IPv4+ was easy. I 
> told him he is delusional and that I emailed him off-list as not to 
> shame him publicly, and all he said was:
>
> > Go ahead, shame me publicly and you will receive the exact same 
> answers, you are obviously have interests regarding IPv6 and you are 
> trying to avoid from the world more IPv4 addresses just for your own 
> personal profit.
> >
> > You are obviously have illegal interests in Ripe and this is the 
> only reasons for your emails to me.
>
> There is no talking sense into this person. He is oblivious to how the 
> internet works and how hardware and software upgrades are implemented 
> and deployed. Obviously pointing out his flaws means I have an illegal 
> interest somehow.
>
> I think Elad has already tried following Trump's recent advice and we 
> are seeing the consequences…
>
> Time to move on…
> Sander
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/matthias%40brumm.net

-- 
Unser Familien-Blog: https://brumm.family

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200426/94dfc963/attachment.html>