- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
by Elad Cohen 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

Hello Everyone, I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296‬ IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296‬ IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. Respectfully, Elad

16 39

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
by Elad Cohen 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

You didn't fully read my initial post, the MTU with IPv4+ will not be a fixed MTU of 1500 or of any other fixed value, it will be set in the beginning of the connection through a process called: "IPv4+ UDP Handshake" Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:51 AM To: Elad Cohen; 'noc'; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: AW: [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 cannot be sure to have MTU of 1500 everywhere… Normally routers should not do anything with df bit, but it is possible to flip the df bit on the router. It is required for some cases. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:48 An: Tobias Lehner <tl(a)hartl-edv.de>; 'noc' <noc(a)xervers.pt>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie> Cc: members-discuss(a)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 Tobias, Routers will not do anything with the DF and MF flags as long that MTU is fine (and MTU is initially checked with "IPv4+ UDP Handshake") I wrote in previous reply an adjustment to the idea that is quicker to deploy and will not require the routers, but it will lack the RIRs being able to allocate and to assign IPv4+ addresses to LIRs. Each LIR will automatically receive an additional IPv4 address for each current IPv4 address that it have: -------- Here is an optional adjustment to the idea: Only end-users and servers operating systems will be updated (using the operating systems automatic updating mechanism), using the same way that I wrote with the exact same feasible IPv4 packet modification implementation (reserved bit, no fragmentation, fragmentation flags, udp handshake), no other equipment will need to be updated, no routers will need to be updated at all - but then the routing of IPv4+ addresses will always be to the same destination device that have the same four bytes of destination IPv4 address (meaning routing will be as it is now - based on IPv4 and not on IPv4+). In this way, the number of IPv4 addresses will be doubled and each ASN will double his number of IPv4 addresses, each ASN will have his exact same ip addresses but in two formats - in IPv4 format and in IPv4+ format. (if the community is lazy and don't want to upgrade the needed routers by IT professionals, and it is not the whole routers in the world, far far far less) -------- Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:43 AM To: 'noc'; Elad Cohen; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: AW: [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, Furthermore, every router in the connection can/may add/remove the df bit, which breaks your idea. We should really go in the direction of IPv6. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Im Auftrag von noc Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:23 An: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 Hello Elad. I've been reading all the messages you sent. I see that you try hard to push your vision. But here's some reasons to what you suggest doesn't work and will never work: - the extra 2 bits you suggest to use (fragmentation bits) are there for a reason. And that reason is not to have more ips, but to fragment packets when needed. On a perfect worldwide network, they aren't needed. But we are on a imperfect worldwide network and many systems need packet fragmentation to work (satellite systems by example). - it's not possible to upgrade millions of routers. Many reached end-of-life many years ago. If the ISP switch the router, he will deploy right away ipv6. - IPv4+ will not give more time to deploy IPv6. It will only delay it. Everyone is lazy for different reasons. So, if IPv4 works, why deploy IPv6? No. It's been since 2012 that we (RIPE) announced the exhaustion of IPv4. And very few has been done to push IPv6. - enterprises like Microsoft will earn a lot more of IPv4+ if they implement it... Why will they bother? They already have 2 /8 legacy not being used/routed. And this is the same for a lot other companies. Many already invested a lot on IPv6, will they do new investments for IPv4+ knowing that is a dead end? No. - IPv4+ is easy to implement. Wrong. It's hard. It will need to be implemented on each level till the top (IANA), and I doubt the very top will do anything to change this. Looking at the statistics everywhere, I see that IPv6 implementation his growing a lot since September. And this, yes. It's a good news. Your idea should've be pushed 15 years ago (before the running out announcement), not now. Now there is nothing it can be done. Cheers Enviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Data: 26/04/20 00:54 (GMT+01:00) Para: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Assunto: 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 Indeed demand is rising, but I don't believe that the world will use more than 4 billion new IPv4 addresses in 5 years, it will not happen, the RIRs already have very strict policies that will continue to be used, IPv4+ will not end fast - it will provide many many years that in them migration to IPv6 will be able to be completed quietly. (without the world to be in any problem) The only reason that IPv4 exhausted recently is because companies from all over the world were told that IPv4 is about to end (and this was the brainwash) so they opened LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last /22's - this is the only reason. And people that are doing money out of it. But if each RIR will have 800+ new million ip addresses and the RIRs will use strict policies to provide them and there will not be a shortage and the public will know that there isn't a shortage of IPv4 - then you will see that companies will not open LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:39 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 IPv6 isn’t slow because of the lack of trying, it is slow because of Microsoft et al’s unwillingness to adopt it. If it became the default IP stack to use on all operating systems rather than a “nice to have” “feature” attitudes would change. 3-4 times you have said now that it would take another 25 years to exhaust this “new” IPv4 space, that just doesn’t track with the current demand for addressing. You’d only be delaying and thwarting existing efforts to deploy IPv6. Sent from my iPhone On 25 Apr 2020, at 22:34, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> wrote: Torbjorn, IPv6 cannot communicate directly with IPv4, while IPv4+ can communicate directly with IPv4. Technicians don't have to know anything about IPv4+ (and not to know how it internally works) besides to know how to upgrade the firmware of a router and how to update a patch to an operating system, in contrary to IPv6 that Technicians need to know it completely in order to design an IPv6 network and for it also to work with IPv4. I didn't write that I'm against learning or implementing IPv6, I wrote my opinion on why deployment of IPv6 is slow and will be slow. It took us approximately 25 years to use almost 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses, the same number of ip addresses IPv4+ will bring us at least more 25 years. CGNAT is not good for datacenters, and datacenter needs and will need more IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:15 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, > > Because IPv6 is a completely different network than IPv4, IPv4+ is the same network of IPv4. No, IPv4+ is also a complete new network that no OS supports and no technician can understand now. It’s more complicated and more time consuming than deploying IPv6. > (IPv6 require complete new network design, much more to learn for companies/organizations and much more expenses for companies/organizations. IPv4+ will give more time and space that is needed in the world today) Yes, it’s "new“ but you had +20 years to learn IPv6 and you have time now to learn it now while CGNAT is growing. IPv4+ just extends the time a little bit more. /Tobbe > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:04 PM > To: Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Atif, > > Respectfully, we have IPv6 sessions with Tier1 and peering networks and have had for some years now. > I’m not sure there is a Tier1 who doesn’t offer IPv6. > Most UK ISP’s now provide IPv6 by default to people’s homes. > > I agree the uptake has been incredibly slow, which is why I don’t think IPv4+ will be any better. We all updated kit for IPv6 providing trillions more IP addresses to each LIR but the uptake has been slow. > Why would the uptake be faster for IPv4+? > > > Best, > > Stuart Willet. > > From: Atif Naveed [mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:30 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Stuart, > > Hold your horses, till day where IPv6 stands not near to 1 to 10% of utilization across internet. So in so many years IPv6 still not able to catch the eyes of Tier1 or any ISP or simple users. > > So what Elad is offering is still very good option to move ahead at this stage before ipv6 takes off its flight in next decade or so. > > And I can understand deployment will be not that’s straight forward but once it starts flying it will make its own path . > > Regards > > > Atif Naveed > Sr. Specialist > IGW/ISP Core Network Operations > D:+966-11511-1263 > E:a.naveed@go.com.sa > www.go.com.sa<http://www.go.com.sa> > > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet (primary) > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:21 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, I do not think you have fully considered the logistics involved in updating so much hardware and software. > > What about all the L3 switches and routers not owned by ISP’s? > What about bigger ISP’s ad Tier 1’s? Do you honestly believe NTT or Telia will update millions of network devices worldwide for a /21? > > Honestly, the update alone is unfeasible, especially when we already have fully working IPv6. > > On that note, everyone has been given an incredible amount of IPv6 space, but this has not picked up anywhere near fast enough. > I appreciate you believe IPv4+ will be more compatible, but it simply will not work unless the entire world updates all IP based switching and routing platforms as well as operating systems and bespoke hardware. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad@netstyle.io] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:13 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > My main issue is that it is not a replacement for IPv6, it is just an additional pool of ip addresses for IPv4, I do understand that IPv4 ip addresses don't come near to the amount of ip addresses in IPv6, but we will always have devices that are too old to be upgraded to IPv6 and the solution I wrote is doubling the amount of IPv4 (comparing to IPv6 it is meaning less but comparing to the number of ip addresses in IPv4 it is doubling the amount of IPv4), and I do believe that more IPv4 addresses will make the transition to IPv6 faster (everyone will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then transition to only-IPv6 will be smoother). > > Regarding the number of devices: > • Any routing device with more than two physical routes > • Any BGP router > • Any operating system > The operating systems updates can be fast through their automatic update systems, regarding updating the routing equipment - if each ASN will be know the he will receive a free /21 from the IPv4+ you will see that it will be fast as well (and after it each of the 5 RIRs will have more than 800,000,000 new IPv4 addresses). > > When the ip protocol was created with the saved reserved bit, the reserved bit was saved for just such case, for the case that we are in, what better use would be to the reserved bit in the IPv4 packet header if not to double the amount of IPv4 addresses (at the last stage of the transition to IPv6). > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:01 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmembers-discuss@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 > > Sorry, there are far too many Layer3 switches and routers which already support IPv6 and would need to be updated to support IPv4+. > There are also many firewalls, both hardware and software which would need updating but can already use IPv6. > > If you had proposed this before the introduction of IPv6 I am sure it would have worked, but it is inferior to IPv6 in two respects. > 1: it would require updating millions of routers, L3 switches, firewalls, operating systems and 3rd party devices. > 2: it would not offer anywhere close to the amount of IPv6 addresses which already work. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen > Sent: 25 April 2020 19:56 > To: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > It is not a complete new protocol, the reserved bit (in IPv4 packet header) was intended to be reserved for future use, the future usage of it was planned. > > I'm not against IPv6, but IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4 by design and the world currently need more IPv4 addresses, the number of IPv4 addresses can be easily doubled even in one week, through operating system update of the biggest operating system vendors and simple firmware upgrades by the routing equipment manufacturers. > > switches are working on layer2, they are not related to ip. > > Respectfully, > Elad > > From: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:48 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them. > It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6. > > Cheers. > > <image001.jpg> > NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> > <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> > > > De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Em Nome De Elad Cohen > Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21 > Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Assunto: [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, > > I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: > > Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] > > But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) > > So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) > > and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) > > We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) > > We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). > > The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. > > IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. > > The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. > > For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. > > The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). > > The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. > > Respectfully, > Elad > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/torbjorn.eklov%40int… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/campbell%40inca.ie

11 22

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
by Elad Cohen 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

Did you see any implementation of a router that on its own flip the DF bit? According to all of my checks it doesn't happen - the fragmentation bits are reliable - meaning not modified by routers in the routing path. No every router in world will need to be updated, in a case that a router will flip the DF bit (there is no online record of such case to happen that routers change on their own fragmentation bits, in the whole internet) then the IPv4+ packet will not reach the destination in the initial "IPv4+ UDP Handshake" and hence the communication (after a successfull "IPv4+ UDP Handshake") will not happen. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:01 AM To: Elad Cohen; 'noc'; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: AW: [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 Then you need to update software of all routers. Any router in the path must not switch the df bit. Every piece of network hardware must be verified or updated, which would cause a big delay in implementing. If it is not checked some router may flip the df bit and you would not get a connectoin. I guess to setup IPv6 is more straightforward and would not cause this delay. Because we have it already. It is a nice idea of you but it will fail at the implementing or causes several delay. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:54 An: Tobias Lehner <tl(a)hartl-edv.de>; 'noc' <noc(a)xervers.pt>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie> Cc: members-discuss(a)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 You didn't fully read my initial post, the MTU with IPv4+ will not be a fixed MTU of 1500 or of any other fixed value, it will be set in the beginning of the connection through a process called: "IPv4+ UDP Handshake" Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:51 AM To: Elad Cohen; 'noc'; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: AW: [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 cannot be sure to have MTU of 1500 everywhere… Normally routers should not do anything with df bit, but it is possible to flip the df bit on the router. It is required for some cases. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:48 An: Tobias Lehner <tl(a)hartl-edv.de<mailto:tl@hartl-edv.de>>; 'noc' <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 Tobias, Routers will not do anything with the DF and MF flags as long that MTU is fine (and MTU is initially checked with "IPv4+ UDP Handshake") I wrote in previous reply an adjustment to the idea that is quicker to deploy and will not require the routers, but it will lack the RIRs being able to allocate and to assign IPv4+ addresses to LIRs. Each LIR will automatically receive an additional IPv4 address for each current IPv4 address that it have: -------- Here is an optional adjustment to the idea: Only end-users and servers operating systems will be updated (using the operating systems automatic updating mechanism), using the same way that I wrote with the exact same feasible IPv4 packet modification implementation (reserved bit, no fragmentation, fragmentation flags, udp handshake), no other equipment will need to be updated, no routers will need to be updated at all - but then the routing of IPv4+ addresses will always be to the same destination device that have the same four bytes of destination IPv4 address (meaning routing will be as it is now - based on IPv4 and not on IPv4+). In this way, the number of IPv4 addresses will be doubled and each ASN will double his number of IPv4 addresses, each ASN will have his exact same ip addresses but in two formats - in IPv4 format and in IPv4+ format. (if the community is lazy and don't want to upgrade the needed routers by IT professionals, and it is not the whole routers in the world, far far far less) -------- Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:43 AM To: 'noc'; Elad Cohen; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: AW: [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, Furthermore, every router in the connection can/may add/remove the df bit, which breaks your idea. We should really go in the direction of IPv6. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Im Auftrag von noc Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:23 An: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 Hello Elad. I've been reading all the messages you sent. I see that you try hard to push your vision. But here's some reasons to what you suggest doesn't work and will never work: - the extra 2 bits you suggest to use (fragmentation bits) are there for a reason. And that reason is not to have more ips, but to fragment packets when needed. On a perfect worldwide network, they aren't needed. But we are on a imperfect worldwide network and many systems need packet fragmentation to work (satellite systems by example). - it's not possible to upgrade millions of routers. Many reached end-of-life many years ago. If the ISP switch the router, he will deploy right away ipv6. - IPv4+ will not give more time to deploy IPv6. It will only delay it. Everyone is lazy for different reasons. So, if IPv4 works, why deploy IPv6? No. It's been since 2012 that we (RIPE) announced the exhaustion of IPv4. And very few has been done to push IPv6. - enterprises like Microsoft will earn a lot more of IPv4+ if they implement it... Why will they bother? They already have 2 /8 legacy not being used/routed. And this is the same for a lot other companies. Many already invested a lot on IPv6, will they do new investments for IPv4+ knowing that is a dead end? No. - IPv4+ is easy to implement. Wrong. It's hard. It will need to be implemented on each level till the top (IANA), and I doubt the very top will do anything to change this. Looking at the statistics everywhere, I see that IPv6 implementation his growing a lot since September. And this, yes. It's a good news. Your idea should've be pushed 15 years ago (before the running out announcement), not now. Now there is nothing it can be done. Cheers Enviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Data: 26/04/20 00:54 (GMT+01:00) Para: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Assunto: 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 Indeed demand is rising, but I don't believe that the world will use more than 4 billion new IPv4 addresses in 5 years, it will not happen, the RIRs already have very strict policies that will continue to be used, IPv4+ will not end fast - it will provide many many years that in them migration to IPv6 will be able to be completed quietly. (without the world to be in any problem) The only reason that IPv4 exhausted recently is because companies from all over the world were told that IPv4 is about to end (and this was the brainwash) so they opened LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last /22's - this is the only reason. And people that are doing money out of it. But if each RIR will have 800+ new million ip addresses and the RIRs will use strict policies to provide them and there will not be a shortage and the public will know that there isn't a shortage of IPv4 - then you will see that companies will not open LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:39 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 IPv6 isn’t slow because of the lack of trying, it is slow because of Microsoft et al’s unwillingness to adopt it. If it became the default IP stack to use on all operating systems rather than a “nice to have” “feature” attitudes would change. 3-4 times you have said now that it would take another 25 years to exhaust this “new” IPv4 space, that just doesn’t track with the current demand for addressing. You’d only be delaying and thwarting existing efforts to deploy IPv6. Sent from my iPhone On 25 Apr 2020, at 22:34, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> wrote: Torbjorn, IPv6 cannot communicate directly with IPv4, while IPv4+ can communicate directly with IPv4. Technicians don't have to know anything about IPv4+ (and not to know how it internally works) besides to know how to upgrade the firmware of a router and how to update a patch to an operating system, in contrary to IPv6 that Technicians need to know it completely in order to design an IPv6 network and for it also to work with IPv4. I didn't write that I'm against learning or implementing IPv6, I wrote my opinion on why deployment of IPv6 is slow and will be slow. It took us approximately 25 years to use almost 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses, the same number of ip addresses IPv4+ will bring us at least more 25 years. CGNAT is not good for datacenters, and datacenter needs and will need more IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:15 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, > > Because IPv6 is a completely different network than IPv4, IPv4+ is the same network of IPv4. No, IPv4+ is also a complete new network that no OS supports and no technician can understand now. It’s more complicated and more time consuming than deploying IPv6. > (IPv6 require complete new network design, much more to learn for companies/organizations and much more expenses for companies/organizations. IPv4+ will give more time and space that is needed in the world today) Yes, it’s "new“ but you had +20 years to learn IPv6 and you have time now to learn it now while CGNAT is growing. IPv4+ just extends the time a little bit more. /Tobbe > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:04 PM > To: Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Atif, > > Respectfully, we have IPv6 sessions with Tier1 and peering networks and have had for some years now. > I’m not sure there is a Tier1 who doesn’t offer IPv6. > Most UK ISP’s now provide IPv6 by default to people’s homes. > > I agree the uptake has been incredibly slow, which is why I don’t think IPv4+ will be any better. We all updated kit for IPv6 providing trillions more IP addresses to each LIR but the uptake has been slow. > Why would the uptake be faster for IPv4+? > > > Best, > > Stuart Willet. > > From: Atif Naveed [mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:30 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Stuart, > > Hold your horses, till day where IPv6 stands not near to 1 to 10% of utilization across internet. So in so many years IPv6 still not able to catch the eyes of Tier1 or any ISP or simple users. > > So what Elad is offering is still very good option to move ahead at this stage before ipv6 takes off its flight in next decade or so. > > And I can understand deployment will be not that’s straight forward but once it starts flying it will make its own path . > > Regards > > > Atif Naveed > Sr. Specialist > IGW/ISP Core Network Operations > D:+966-11511-1263 > E:a.naveed@go.com.sa > www.go.com.sa<http://www.go.com.sa> > > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet (primary) > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:21 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, I do not think you have fully considered the logistics involved in updating so much hardware and software. > > What about all the L3 switches and routers not owned by ISP’s? > What about bigger ISP’s ad Tier 1’s? Do you honestly believe NTT or Telia will update millions of network devices worldwide for a /21? > > Honestly, the update alone is unfeasible, especially when we already have fully working IPv6. > > On that note, everyone has been given an incredible amount of IPv6 space, but this has not picked up anywhere near fast enough. > I appreciate you believe IPv4+ will be more compatible, but it simply will not work unless the entire world updates all IP based switching and routing platforms as well as operating systems and bespoke hardware. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad@netstyle.io] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:13 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > My main issue is that it is not a replacement for IPv6, it is just an additional pool of ip addresses for IPv4, I do understand that IPv4 ip addresses don't come near to the amount of ip addresses in IPv6, but we will always have devices that are too old to be upgraded to IPv6 and the solution I wrote is doubling the amount of IPv4 (comparing to IPv6 it is meaning less but comparing to the number of ip addresses in IPv4 it is doubling the amount of IPv4), and I do believe that more IPv4 addresses will make the transition to IPv6 faster (everyone will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then transition to only-IPv6 will be smoother). > > Regarding the number of devices: > • Any routing device with more than two physical routes > • Any BGP router > • Any operating system > The operating systems updates can be fast through their automatic update systems, regarding updating the routing equipment - if each ASN will be know the he will receive a free /21 from the IPv4+ you will see that it will be fast as well (and after it each of the 5 RIRs will have more than 800,000,000 new IPv4 addresses). > > When the ip protocol was created with the saved reserved bit, the reserved bit was saved for just such case, for the case that we are in, what better use would be to the reserved bit in the IPv4 packet header if not to double the amount of IPv4 addresses (at the last stage of the transition to IPv6). > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:01 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmembers-discuss@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 > > Sorry, there are far too many Layer3 switches and routers which already support IPv6 and would need to be updated to support IPv4+. > There are also many firewalls, both hardware and software which would need updating but can already use IPv6. > > If you had proposed this before the introduction of IPv6 I am sure it would have worked, but it is inferior to IPv6 in two respects. > 1: it would require updating millions of routers, L3 switches, firewalls, operating systems and 3rd party devices. > 2: it would not offer anywhere close to the amount of IPv6 addresses which already work. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen > Sent: 25 April 2020 19:56 > To: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > It is not a complete new protocol, the reserved bit (in IPv4 packet header) was intended to be reserved for future use, the future usage of it was planned. > > I'm not against IPv6, but IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4 by design and the world currently need more IPv4 addresses, the number of IPv4 addresses can be easily doubled even in one week, through operating system update of the biggest operating system vendors and simple firmware upgrades by the routing equipment manufacturers. > > switches are working on layer2, they are not related to ip. > > Respectfully, > Elad > > From: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:48 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them. > It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6. > > Cheers. > > <image001.jpg> > NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> > <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> > > > De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Em Nome De Elad Cohen > Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21 > Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Assunto: [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, > > I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: > > Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] > > But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) > > So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) > > and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) > > We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) > > We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). > > The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. > > IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. > > The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. > > For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. > > The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). > > The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. > > Respectfully, > Elad > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/torbjorn.eklov%40int… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/campbell%40inca.ie

1 0

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
by Elad Cohen 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

Tobias, Routers will not do anything with the DF and MF flags as long that MTU is fine (and MTU is initially checked with "IPv4+ UDP Handshake") I wrote in previous reply an adjustment to the idea that is quicker to deploy and will not require the routers, but it will lack the RIRs being able to allocate and to assign IPv4+ addresses to LIRs. Each LIR will automatically receive an additional IPv4 address for each current IPv4 address that it have: -------- Here is an optional adjustment to the idea: Only end-users and servers operating systems will be updated (using the operating systems automatic updating mechanism), using the same way that I wrote with the exact same feasible IPv4 packet modification implementation (reserved bit, no fragmentation, fragmentation flags, udp handshake), no other equipment will need to be updated, no routers will need to be updated at all - but then the routing of IPv4+ addresses will always be to the same destination device that have the same four bytes of destination IPv4 address (meaning routing will be as it is now - based on IPv4 and not on IPv4+). In this way, the number of IPv4 addresses will be doubled and each ASN will double his number of IPv4 addresses, each ASN will have his exact same ip addresses but in two formats - in IPv4 format and in IPv4+ format. (if the community is lazy and don't want to upgrade the needed routers by IT professionals, and it is not the whole routers in the world, far far far less) -------- Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Tobias Lehner Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:43 AM To: 'noc'; Elad Cohen; Ed Campbell Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: AW: [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, Furthermore, every router in the connection can/may add/remove the df bit, which breaks your idea. We should really go in the direction of IPv6. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Tobias Lehner Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> Im Auftrag von noc Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:23 An: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io>; Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie> Cc: members-discuss(a)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 Hello Elad. I've been reading all the messages you sent. I see that you try hard to push your vision. But here's some reasons to what you suggest doesn't work and will never work: - the extra 2 bits you suggest to use (fragmentation bits) are there for a reason. And that reason is not to have more ips, but to fragment packets when needed. On a perfect worldwide network, they aren't needed. But we are on a imperfect worldwide network and many systems need packet fragmentation to work (satellite systems by example). - it's not possible to upgrade millions of routers. Many reached end-of-life many years ago. If the ISP switch the router, he will deploy right away ipv6. - IPv4+ will not give more time to deploy IPv6. It will only delay it. Everyone is lazy for different reasons. So, if IPv4 works, why deploy IPv6? No. It's been since 2012 that we (RIPE) announced the exhaustion of IPv4. And very few has been done to push IPv6. - enterprises like Microsoft will earn a lot more of IPv4+ if they implement it... Why will they bother? They already have 2 /8 legacy not being used/routed. And this is the same for a lot other companies. Many already invested a lot on IPv6, will they do new investments for IPv4+ knowing that is a dead end? No. - IPv4+ is easy to implement. Wrong. It's hard. It will need to be implemented on each level till the top (IANA), and I doubt the very top will do anything to change this. Looking at the statistics everywhere, I see that IPv6 implementation his growing a lot since September. And this, yes. It's a good news. Your idea should've be pushed 15 years ago (before the running out announcement), not now. Now there is nothing it can be done. Cheers Enviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Data: 26/04/20 00:54 (GMT+01:00) Para: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Assunto: 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 Indeed demand is rising, but I don't believe that the world will use more than 4 billion new IPv4 addresses in 5 years, it will not happen, the RIRs already have very strict policies that will continue to be used, IPv4+ will not end fast - it will provide many many years that in them migration to IPv6 will be able to be completed quietly. (without the world to be in any problem) The only reason that IPv4 exhausted recently is because companies from all over the world were told that IPv4 is about to end (and this was the brainwash) so they opened LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last /22's - this is the only reason. And people that are doing money out of it. But if each RIR will have 800+ new million ip addresses and the RIRs will use strict policies to provide them and there will not be a shortage and the public will know that there isn't a shortage of IPv4 - then you will see that companies will not open LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Ed Campbell <campbell(a)inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:39 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 IPv6 isn’t slow because of the lack of trying, it is slow because of Microsoft et al’s unwillingness to adopt it. If it became the default IP stack to use on all operating systems rather than a “nice to have” “feature” attitudes would change. 3-4 times you have said now that it would take another 25 years to exhaust this “new” IPv4 space, that just doesn’t track with the current demand for addressing. You’d only be delaying and thwarting existing efforts to deploy IPv6. Sent from my iPhone On 25 Apr 2020, at 22:34, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> wrote: Torbjorn, IPv6 cannot communicate directly with IPv4, while IPv4+ can communicate directly with IPv4. Technicians don't have to know anything about IPv4+ (and not to know how it internally works) besides to know how to upgrade the firmware of a router and how to update a patch to an operating system, in contrary to IPv6 that Technicians need to know it completely in order to design an IPv6 network and for it also to work with IPv4. I didn't write that I'm against learning or implementing IPv6, I wrote my opinion on why deployment of IPv6 is slow and will be slow. It took us approximately 25 years to use almost 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses, the same number of ip addresses IPv4+ will bring us at least more 25 years. CGNAT is not good for datacenters, and datacenter needs and will need more IPv4 addresses. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:15 AM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, > > Because IPv6 is a completely different network than IPv4, IPv4+ is the same network of IPv4. No, IPv4+ is also a complete new network that no OS supports and no technician can understand now. It’s more complicated and more time consuming than deploying IPv6. > (IPv6 require complete new network design, much more to learn for companies/organizations and much more expenses for companies/organizations. IPv4+ will give more time and space that is needed in the world today) Yes, it’s "new“ but you had +20 years to learn IPv6 and you have time now to learn it now while CGNAT is growing. IPv4+ just extends the time a little bit more. /Tobbe > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:04 PM > To: Atif Naveed <a.naveed(a)go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Atif, > > Respectfully, we have IPv6 sessions with Tier1 and peering networks and have had for some years now. > I’m not sure there is a Tier1 who doesn’t offer IPv6. > Most UK ISP’s now provide IPv6 by default to people’s homes. > > I agree the uptake has been incredibly slow, which is why I don’t think IPv4+ will be any better. We all updated kit for IPv6 providing trillions more IP addresses to each LIR but the uptake has been slow. > Why would the uptake be faster for IPv4+? > > > Best, > > Stuart Willet. > > From: Atif Naveed [mailto:a.naveed@go.com.sa] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:30 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > Dear Stuart, > > Hold your horses, till day where IPv6 stands not near to 1 to 10% of utilization across internet. So in so many years IPv6 still not able to catch the eyes of Tier1 or any ISP or simple users. > > So what Elad is offering is still very good option to move ahead at this stage before ipv6 takes off its flight in next decade or so. > > And I can understand deployment will be not that’s straight forward but once it starts flying it will make its own path . > > Regards > > > Atif Naveed > Sr. Specialist > IGW/ISP Core Network Operations > D:+966-11511-1263 > E:a.naveed@go.com.sa > www.go.com.sa<http://www.go.com.sa> > > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet (primary) > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:21 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, I do not think you have fully considered the logistics involved in updating so much hardware and software. > > What about all the L3 switches and routers not owned by ISP’s? > What about bigger ISP’s ad Tier 1’s? Do you honestly believe NTT or Telia will update millions of network devices worldwide for a /21? > > Honestly, the update alone is unfeasible, especially when we already have fully working IPv6. > > On that note, everyone has been given an incredible amount of IPv6 space, but this has not picked up anywhere near fast enough. > I appreciate you believe IPv4+ will be more compatible, but it simply will not work unless the entire world updates all IP based switching and routing platforms as well as operating systems and bespoke hardware. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad@netstyle.io] > Sent: 25 April 2020 20:13 > To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > My main issue is that it is not a replacement for IPv6, it is just an additional pool of ip addresses for IPv4, I do understand that IPv4 ip addresses don't come near to the amount of ip addresses in IPv6, but we will always have devices that are too old to be upgraded to IPv6 and the solution I wrote is doubling the amount of IPv4 (comparing to IPv6 it is meaning less but comparing to the number of ip addresses in IPv4 it is doubling the amount of IPv4), and I do believe that more IPv4 addresses will make the transition to IPv6 faster (everyone will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then transition to only-IPv6 will be smoother). > > Regarding the number of devices: > • Any routing device with more than two physical routes > • Any BGP router > • Any operating system > The operating systems updates can be fast through their automatic update systems, regarding updating the routing equipment - if each ASN will be know the he will receive a free /21 from the IPv4+ you will see that it will be fast as well (and after it each of the 5 RIRs will have more than 800,000,000 new IPv4 addresses). > > When the ip protocol was created with the saved reserved bit, the reserved bit was saved for just such case, for the case that we are in, what better use would be to the reserved bit in the IPv4 packet header if not to double the amount of IPv4 addresses (at the last stage of the transition to IPv6). > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:01 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmembers-discuss@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 > > Sorry, there are far too many Layer3 switches and routers which already support IPv6 and would need to be updated to support IPv4+. > There are also many firewalls, both hardware and software which would need updating but can already use IPv6. > > If you had proposed this before the introduction of IPv6 I am sure it would have worked, but it is inferior to IPv6 in two respects. > 1: it would require updating millions of routers, L3 switches, firewalls, operating systems and 3rd party devices. > 2: it would not offer anywhere close to the amount of IPv6 addresses which already work. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen > Sent: 25 April 2020 19:56 > To: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > It is not a complete new protocol, the reserved bit (in IPv4 packet header) was intended to be reserved for future use, the future usage of it was planned. > > I'm not against IPv6, but IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4 by design and the world currently need more IPv4 addresses, the number of IPv4 addresses can be easily doubled even in one week, through operating system update of the biggest operating system vendors and simple firmware upgrades by the routing equipment manufacturers. > > switches are working on layer2, they are not related to ip. > > Respectfully, > Elad > > From: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:48 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them. > It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6. > > Cheers. > > <image001.jpg> > NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> > <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> > > > De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Em Nome De Elad Cohen > Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21 > Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Assunto: [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, > > I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: > > Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] > > But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) > > So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) > > and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) > > We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) > > We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). > > The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. > > IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. > > The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. > > For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. > > The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). > > The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. > > Respectfully, > Elad > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/torbjorn.eklov%40int… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/campbell%40inca.ie

2 1

Re: [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
by Elad Cohen 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

I never created an RFC and not familiar with the process, but I wanted to discuss IPv4+ with Ripe members as I'm a Ripe LIR. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: info(a)cowmedia.de Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:53 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Cc: 'noc xervers'; Elad Cohen Subject: AW: [SPAM] 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, anyhow this is not the right list to discuss this. You need to create an RfC – but as IPv6 already exist there is no real chance of implementing this I would say. Michael Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> Im Auftrag von noc xervers Gesendet: Samstag, 25. April 2020 20:49 An: 'Elad Cohen' <elad(a)netstyle.io>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Betreff: [SPAM] 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 That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them. It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6. Cheers. [Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. XERVERS] NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. Visit our website]<https://www.xervers.pt/> [Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/> [Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> [Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. TrustPilot] <https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.xervers.pt> De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> Em Nome De Elad Cohen Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21 Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Assunto: [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, I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. Respectfully, Elad

2 4

Another solution to the IPv4 shortage
by Jens Link 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

Hi, as I'm struggling to find the political correct words for people subscribing a ticket system to a mailing list with "-discuss" in the name i came up with another solution to the IPv4 shortage: Every person / organization adding this mailing list to a ticket system and thereby creation unnecessary (auto reply) messages or other messages of that kind: - are immediately unsubscribed form any mailing list - forfeit all their resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASN) - can never become a RIPE member again As I just got a mail from a large advertising / could / search engine company this might free up significant resources. Jens -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink(a)quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2

Re: [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
by Elad Cohen 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

Thilo, The problem is that there is a demand in the world for IPv4 and IPv4 will soon runout in all the RIRs. IPv6, to my opinion, is not deployed because it costs money, manpower, IT department, learning, etc - companies are basing their actions on profitable / not profitable - you will not see companies rushing to IPv6 when they are not have to, when IPv4 works perfectly fine for them, they will not put expenses for something that can only cause them more expenses if there will be any problem with the IPv6 deployment (to my opinion this is what the reasonable company will react) and specially in these times of COVID, reasonable companies will minimize expenses and will try less to change things which are working. NAT is being used for many years, and still the demand for IPv4 is huge (all RIRs soon will not have any available single IPv4), datacenters are not using NAT. The main problem with IPv6 is by-design, creating a completely different ip protocol which is not backward-compatible is very bad, the design of it is very bad and it what brought us to this state (and also the 4 byte limitation in IPv4), but I'm not against the deployment of it, the deployment of IPv6 will be completed and I believe that more IPv4 addresses will help the deployment of IPv6, specially in these times we need more connectivity and IPv4+ brings more connectivity in the very immediate near future (IPv6 will do it in the longer term). I do believe also as you wrote that IPv4 addresses will become more and more expensive (if IPv4+ will not be implemented), regulators intervention in each country for IPv4 rate seems to me a more difficult task than the deployment of IPv6 and IPv4+ together :) Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Thilo Mohri <inbox(a)tmohri.de> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:36 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [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 Elad, I like your solution - however, where is the problem you are trying to solve? The problem we have with IPv6 is absolutely non-technical, most devices natively support IPv6, for legacy devices we have 4in6 and to deal with IPv4 exhaustion we have NAT at least on the b2c side. The solution to IPv4 exhaustion is there - it is called IPv6, it is just not deployed! The problem is with organizations who don’t have IPv6 on their priority list - and this will change over time when IPv4 will get more expensive and not possible to run anymore. I agree it’s a slow adoption, but the market will settle this over time. The only risk I see here is that the market will be dominated by big players in the future as small players cannot get any footprint into the IPv4 market anymore and not able to reach all their customers with IPv6 -> this must be solved by the different telco regulators in the respective countries. Just my two cents, Thilo - sent from my mobile. On 25. Apr 2020, at 22:31, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> wrote: Michael, Please see my following answers: 1. No additional header bit is needed, the ip packet is exactly as it is now, the 'reserved bit flag' will just be '1' instead of '0' , the reserved bit is available in the ip header and hence the filter will see the whole ip packet. (any router that do any check regarding the source address or the destination - will need to be upgraded). 2. This is not a new protocol, IPv6 is a new protocol, it is an adjustment to a current protocol and not any device which implemented that protocol (IPv4) will need to be upgraded, providing IPv4 address (of IPv4+) to all the parties involved (when IPv4 addresses are so much needed in these days) and using the automatic updating mechanism of operating systems - can and will make this whole process much much faster. 3. It is an adjustment to a current protocol and not a completely new protocol, clean code updates will resolve it. There is no need to know what is the main protocol (IPv4+ or IPv4) because the exact same IPv4 packet is being used, upgraded routers will just know how to route it well (if the four bytes of source address are of IPv4 or IPv4+ and if the four bytes of destination address are of IPv4 or IPv4+). 4. Please see what I wrote, I didn't write that only some of the needed routers will be upgraded, I wrote that all the end-users operating systems will be updated (through the automatic updating mechanism of the operating systems). 5. We can argue on it, I believe that if companies and organizations will have a high pool of IPv4 then they will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then more and more companies and organizations will support both IPv4 and IPv6 until the whole internet will be able to move to only IPv6. IPv6 is being talked for 20 years and currently the world is in a very big problem because of the lack of IPv4. 6. From the very beginning with the round table and IPv4+ addresses incentives to everyone - IPv4+ will be deployed very very fast, I wrote about very margins cases, from the very beginning through the round table IPv4+ will be deployed (Automatic operating system updates will done only after the ISP's and ASN's will complete to update their routers and will receive their amount of free new IPv4 addresses). And just in case an ISP will assign to its user an IPv4+ addresses to use the internet then that IPv4+ addresses need to access the whole internet (there are many online services that are not yet supporting IPv6+). I'm not against IPv6 - I surely believe it is the future, but more IPv4 addresses are needed for and until IPv6 to be fully adapted. 7. Please write about any unanswered point. I don't believe that I'm late because 20 years ago there wasn't any need to use the 'reserved bit flag' in the ip header, it was intended for future use, and what would be a better use to the 'reserved bit flag' than to use it for the current IPv4 Exhaustion problem. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of info(a)cowmedia.de <info(a)cowmedia.de> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:00 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [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 Elad, i really appreciate your idea, but there are unfortunately some issues to this. 1. It requires an additonal header bit that is not part of the address itself, how would a filter know about this when there is only the ip address given (the bit it not available to them). 2. The time of developing and rollout a new type of protocol (what this is) takes years (maybe 10-15 years) even this is theoretically just a small change) 3. Configuring dual protocol is already with IPv4+6 sometimes a hard issue. There are issues with what protocol is the main one and how applications are using them 4. It is not enough to update only networking equipment because the application layer decides about the target (for example the browser via DNS), even today so many software is not compatible with IPv6, how would you expect them to include IPv4+? 5. IPv4+ would slow down IPv6 rollout 6. Your thinking about users will complain when sites are not reachable is not correct. ISPs and service owner make sure right now that the service is at least reachable by IPv4 and they are in the process of trying to add IPv6 to them. There is no way of having users not access any service just because a provider or any MITM is not yet ready. Hence IPv4+ will NEVER be solely rollout to any service. 7. Plus many more points that were raised. You are really 20 years too late. I am so sorry. Michael Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Elad Cohen Gesendet: Samstag, 25. April 2020 21:42 An: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Betreff: [SPAM] 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 Torbjorn, Equipment which is old enough not to support IPv6+ will probably won't be able to be upgraded to IPv4+ , but it is still using an IPv4 address, and it is the main point, it is using IPv4 address and there is a global need for IPv4 addresses. Regarding homerouters and iot that you wrote - they will not need to be upgraded to IPv4+ , IPv4+ will be transparent to them. Hosts will be upgraded using the automatic update mechanism of their operating system. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:36 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> Cc: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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, More IPv4 will not make the transition faster. If you and other have equipment that can’t be upgraded and support IPv6 its probably to old for IPv4 upgrade also and with all security issues they can’t be patched for. The OS upgrade for some mix with IPv4+ is a bigger issue than IPv6 deployment. There are billions of hosts/homerouters/IoT that never will get an upgrade to support that. /T > On 25 Apr 2020, at 21:13, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> wrote: > > My main issue is that it is not a replacement for IPv6, it is just an additional pool of ip addresses for IPv4, I do understand that IPv4 ip addresses don't come near to the amount of ip addresses in IPv6, but we will always have devices that are too old to be upgraded to IPv6 and the solution I wrote is doubling the amount of IPv4 (comparing to IPv6 it is meaning less but comparing to the number of ip addresses in IPv4 it is doubling the amount of IPv4), and I do believe that more IPv4 addresses will make the transition to IPv6 faster (everyone will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then transition to only-IPv6 will be smoother). > > Regarding the number of devices: > • Any routing device with more than two physical routes > • Any BGP router > • Any operating system > The operating systems updates can be fast through their automatic update systems, regarding updating the routing equipment - if each ASN will be know the he will receive a free /21 from the IPv4+ you will see that it will be fast as well (and after it each of the 5 RIRs will have more than 800,000,000 new IPv4 addresses). > > When the ip protocol was created with the saved reserved bit, the reserved bit was saved for just such case, for the case that we are in, what better use would be to the reserved bit in the IPv4 packet header if not to double the amount of IPv4 addresses (at the last stage of the transition to IPv6). > > Respectfully, > Elad > From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu(a)safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu@safehosts.co.uk>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:01 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmembers-discuss@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 > > Sorry, there are far too many Layer3 switches and routers which already support IPv6 and would need to be updated to support IPv4+. > There are also many firewalls, both hardware and software which would need updating but can already use IPv6. > > If you had proposed this before the introduction of IPv6 I am sure it would have worked, but it is inferior to IPv6 in two respects. > 1: it would require updating millions of routers, L3 switches, firewalls, operating systems and 3rd party devices. > 2: it would not offer anywhere close to the amount of IPv6 addresses which already work. > > Best, > Stuart Willet. > > From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen > Sent: 25 April 2020 19:56 > To: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > It is not a complete new protocol, the reserved bit (in IPv4 packet header) was intended to be reserved for future use, the future usage of it was planned. > > I'm not against IPv6, but IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4 by design and the world currently need more IPv4 addresses, the number of IPv4 addresses can be easily doubled even in one week, through operating system update of the biggest operating system vendors and simple firmware upgrades by the routing equipment manufacturers. > > switches are working on layer2, they are not related to ip. > > Respectfully, > Elad > > From: noc xervers <noc(a)xervers.pt<mailto:noc@xervers.pt>> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:48 PM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 > > That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them. > It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6. > > Cheers. > > <image001.jpg> > NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> > <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> > > > De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Em Nome De Elad Cohen > Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21 > Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Assunto: [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, > > I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much: > > Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255] > > But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes) > > So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]) > > and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535]) > > We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged) > > We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully). > > The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests. > > IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router. > > The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+. > > For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them. > > The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+). > > The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know. > > Respectfully, > Elad > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/torbjorn.eklov%40int… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/inbox%40tmo.sh

1 0

Executive Board Decision on Brokers List
by Christian Kaufmann 22 Apr '20

22 Apr '20

Dear colleagues, After analysing all of your comments and weighing the pros and cons of keeping the brokers list on the website, the board has reached a decision. We’ve decided to keep the broker’s list on the website because we think that this list is a valuable resource for our members. However, we will apply stronger due diligence checks and stronger obligations to all brokers in order to prevent abuse. We are currently developing the relevant procedures and legal framework together with the RIPE NCC. We will give you another update when we have more information. Best regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

1 0

RIPE Validator v3 error
by Fabiano D'Agostino 17 Apr '20

17 Apr '20

Good evening, yesterday I managed to install RIPE Validator v3. Today I rebooted my VM and tried to execute the script again with ./rpki-validator-3.sh, but I get this errors: https://pastebin.com/xtHTCZnq Thanks in advance, Fabiano

2 1

RPKI ROAs for sponsored resources got deleted?
by Dominic Schallert 02 Apr '20

02 Apr '20

Hello Community, what happened to RPKI ROAs for Sponsored Resources yesterday? All of a sudden, all ROAs for Sponsored Resources got deleted... 2020-04-01 16:16:41 system Updated ROA configuration. Additions: none. Deletions: [asn=ASxxx, prefix=x.x.x.x/22, maximumLength=22]. 2020-04-01 16:16:41 system Updated suppressed routes for ROA alerts. Additions: none. Deletions: [asn=ASxxx, prefix=x.x.x.x/22]. Not only our customers affected but also others. Thanks

6 5

Re: [members-discuss] About transfer policies
by Terrence Koeman 04 Mar '20

04 Mar '20

It seems to me they did not notice it earlier, but now they have and are seeking clarification from the issuing authority. Seems completely logical to me. Just because they did not notice it before doesn't mean that they are now forced to continue exactly as before... "doesn't have" on an extract may concern authority to represent a business or something important like that. I don't see what policy is contradicted here? Can you suggest one? -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Dmitry P <head(a)global-data-networks.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 03:13 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] About transfer policies > Hello, > > we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP range and RIPE > doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is suspended > for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would like to hear > other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking some > answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts. > > Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of Justice and > have a specific line near the director field which says '(не має)' right > after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't have)" from > Ukrainian. > ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має); > > We had this line on all our extracts since the company was opened and > RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those extracts b) > approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts since 2016 > c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using the extract > with the same line. > > 4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep. has asked > us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We have no > clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was present > since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned it before, > and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with that line. > > We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep. decided to > suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry of > Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of view. > She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of Ukrainian > companies every day, it's first time that we see such a record. It's not > entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do not have".", > to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE certainly HAS > SEEN this line before, at least because my company have performed many > transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved using same > extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in the name > of RIPE, which already was not very professional. > > So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness in > Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no answer at all. > Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some subject? > Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the min. justice > site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director name - > this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies, which, we > believe should have made this transfer complete already. > > Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any answer to our > questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should concern > this specific transfer, since there were already approved transfers > using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until the Min. > of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very > disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case affects our > transfer at all. > > This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but hearing other > members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like RIPE is > very contradictory to its own policies in this case? > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/terrence%40darkness-…

3 4

About transfer policies
by Dmitry P 03 Mar '20

03 Mar '20

Hello, we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP range and RIPE doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is suspended for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would like to hear other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking some answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts. Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of Justice and have a specific line near the director field which says '(не має)' right after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't have)" from Ukrainian. ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має); We had this line on all our extracts since the company was opened and RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those extracts b) approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts since 2016 c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using the extract with the same line. 4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep. has asked us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We have no clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was present since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned it before, and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with that line. We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep. decided to suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry of Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of view. She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of Ukrainian companies every day, it's first time that we see such a record. It's not entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do not have".", to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE certainly HAS SEEN this line before, at least because my company have performed many transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved using same extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in the name of RIPE, which already was not very professional. So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness in Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no answer at all. Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some subject? Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the min. justice site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director name - this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies, which, we believe should have made this transfer complete already. Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any answer to our questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should concern this specific transfer, since there were already approved transfers using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until the Min. of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case affects our transfer at all. This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but hearing other members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like RIPE is very contradictory to its own policies in this case?

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Skyline Telecom 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

Dominic, I think the reason is that at the GM RIPE misleadingly said that even if we redistribute only “50%” of the surplus, the amount will be the same as last year. Which clearly it isn’t. Unfortunately many based their votes on what the people at RIPE SAID and they didn’t do the math themselves, otherwise they would have seen that there is a significant difference in amounts. And now RIPE is covered, they will say “you voted, case closed” even though they gave very misleading information. So, that’s why the surplus is so much smaller compared to 2019, and that’s the reason RIPE NCC will also pay taxes to NL authorities, etc etc. Basically, they didn’t want to give money to it’s members, they preferred to give money to the dutch fiscal authority. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Dominic Schallert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 20:38 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question I can‘t understand why the surplus redistribution in 2019 had been EUR 567,52 and in 2020 it’s only EUR 353,82 per LIR. This does not match with the actual new-LIR development figures in 2019 according to https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs Regards Am 26.02.2020 um 15:26 schrieb Radu-Adrian Feurdean <ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net<mailto:ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>>: On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 21:41, Arash Naderpour wrote: It doesn't looks fair to me, but you need to see enough support from the memebers to change it, NCC also like easy money, same as many of others. ...and as most of its members who do enjoy the redistribution (when there is one) the next year. Back to the initial question, the membership fee *IS* pro-rated when you *open* the LIR, sometimes to the advantage of the new member (not including an extra quarter for up to 2 or 3 weeks only). If you perform a merger via "M&A Process", the rules are pretty clear that both LIRs involved need to be with membership fees paid. Even if you would manage to propose a resolution to change this, I'm not sure it will pass. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ds%40schallert.com

5 7

Membership Fee Question
by Ali Vargonen 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hello, I would like to ask you about the membership fee costs of RIPE, today I learned something new. Maybe it was something common and I was not aware of it. As a member, you need to pay the full amount for the annual year 2020, if you just use the services for 10 days and terminate your membership with Ripe, so if you use services for 10 or 365 days you will be charged the same amount. I asked if it is possible to make it at least Q based, but this is not an option, 6 months based, not an option. You need to pay full year and it is not based on the number of days or (Q based) you are a member of RIPE in the year. Interesting information for me, I do not think its fair, but everybody could think differently. I would like to get your opinions about it. Is it fair to charge a member, who will not be a member in Q2 + Q3 + Q4 for the annual year? Kind Regards, A.V.

16 23

All RIPE NCC Invoices Now Issued
by Simon-Jan Haytink 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Dear all, Due to some administrative changes, we staggered the issuing of invoices this year while still committing to sending them all in February. All invoices have now been sent and are also accessible from the LIR Portal. Apologies for any uncertainty that might have been caused. And if you have any questions, please let us know at <billing(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Together pal 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Not for me [image: image.png] On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:11 PM Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> wrote: > > > Yes, definitely there > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Together pal <info(a)together-pal.com> > *Sent:* 26 February 2020 20:00 > *To:* Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> > *Cc:* Bora Ismen <bora.ismen(a)nimbevo.com>; Dominic Schallert < > ds(a)schallert.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > They are not available for me, could you double check your account, I > also contacted RIPE two days ago but still waiting for them to answer. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:57 PM Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> > wrote: > > *They are available in the member (LIR) portal* > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Bora > Ismen > *Sent:* 26 February 2020 19:07 > *To:* 'Together pal' <info(a)together-pal.com>; 'Dominic Schallert' < > ds(a)schallert.com> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > Not yet, there is 2 more business days in February, and we have not > received any invoices yet. > > > > *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Together > pal > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 6:41 PM > *To:* Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > Did anyone got the invoice for 2020 fees?? > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:39 PM Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> > wrote: > > I can‘t understand why the surplus redistribution in 2019 had been EUR > 567,52 and in 2020 it’s only EUR 353,82 per LIR. This does not match with > the actual new-LIR development figures in 2019 according to > https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__labs.ripe.net_statisti…> > > > > Regards > > > > > > Am 26.02.2020 um 15:26 schrieb Radu-Adrian Feurdean < > ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net>: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 21:41, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > It doesn't looks fair to me, but you need to see enough support from > > the memebers to change it, NCC also like easy money, same as many of > > others. > > > > ...and as most of its members who do enjoy the redistribution (when there > is one) the next year. > > > > Back to the initial question, the membership fee *IS* pro-rated when you > *open* the LIR, sometimes to the advantage of the new member (not including > an extra quarter for up to 2 or 3 weeks only). > > > > If you perform a merger via "M&A Process", the rules are pretty clear that > both LIRs involved need to be with membership fees paid. Even if you would > manage to propose a resolution to change this, I'm not sure it will pass. > > > > -- > > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ds%40schallert.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40together-pal.… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Terrence Koeman 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

You're paying for an annual membership. Not a quarterly membership or a monthly membership. If you want to terminate it early that's your prerogative, but you get what you pay for even if you don't "use" it. Note that you're paying for a RIPE membership, not RIPE services. A RIPE membership for 2020 funds RIPE as a whole for 2020, if you terminate your membership early RIPE still exists the rest of the year, as do the other members. It looks completely fair to me. Additionally, I recommend that you actually read what you sign in the future. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, 24 February 2020 21:43 To: Ali Vargonen Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > It doesn't looks fair to me, but you need to see enough support from the > memebers to change it, NCC also like easy money, same as many of others. > > Regards, > > Arash > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, 02:18 Ali Vargonen, <ali(a)vargonen.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I would like to ask you about the membership fee costs of RIPE, today I > > learned something new. > > Maybe it was something common and I was not aware of it. > > > > As a member, you need to pay the full amount for the annual year 2020, if > > you just use the services for 10 days and terminate your membership with > > Ripe, so if you use services for 10 or 365 days you will be charged the > > same amount. > > > > I asked if it is possible to make it at least Q based, but this is not an > > option, 6 months based, not an option. > > > > You need to pay full year and it is not based on the number of days or (Q > > based) you are a member of RIPE in the year. > > > > Interesting information for me, I do not think its fair, but everybody > > could think differently. I would like to get your opinions about it. > > > > Is it fair to charge a member, who will not be a member in Q2 + Q3 + Q4 > > for the annual year? > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > A.V. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gm… > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Ali Vargonen 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Hello, - the issue is not about selling ips on our side. - merge two different entities together after 10+ years. In legal wise, if you terminate a contract earlier than the agreed period of time, there is normally a penalty fee. Not pushing hard to make annual payment. The issue is not about money wise on my side. Just trying to learn what you think, and I respect each and every answer of you. Thanks. On 24 Feb 2020, at 18:49, Mark Scholten <info(a)mscholten.eu> wrote: Hello, Maybe they should make an exception if you return at least a /22 IPv4 (or whatever direct allocation you did get from RIPE NCC). That way it would help to reduce the waiting list a bit. If you are going to sell the /22 I don't see a reason to make it cheaper. Also I believe RIPE NCC warns early enough for this (by the end of the previous year). Regards, Mark From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cynthia Revström Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 16:41 To: Ali Vargonen Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question Hello, I think it is fair because pretty much the only members it affects are entities with multiple memberships which should not be able to get LIRs even cheaper. - Cynthia On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM Ali Vargonen <ali(a)vargonen.com<mailto:ali@vargonen.com>> wrote: Hello, I would like to ask you about the membership fee costs of RIPE, today I learned something new. Maybe it was something common and I was not aware of it. As a member, you need to pay the full amount for the annual year 2020, if you just use the services for 10 days and terminate your membership with Ripe, so if you use services for 10 or 365 days you will be charged the same amount. I asked if it is possible to make it at least Q based, but this is not an option, 6 months based, not an option. You need to pay full year and it is not based on the number of days or (Q based) you are a member of RIPE in the year. Interesting information for me, I do not think its fair, but everybody could think differently. I would like to get your opinions about it. Is it fair to charge a member, who will not be a member in Q2 + Q3 + Q4 for the annual year? Kind Regards, A.V. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re

2 2

Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
by Christian Kaufmann 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Dear RIPE NCC members, The Executive Board has been following this discussion and we can see general agreement for a change in the way brokers are listed on the RIPE NCC's website. The question is whether the RIPE NCC should remove the list entirely, or otherwise take steps to improve its approach. There are pros and cons with both options. Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might happen if this incentive is gone. Conversely, it's clear that some brokers are still spamming RIPE Database contacts. Is this the only problem we are seeking to eliminate here, or are there others? Could an updated set of terms or a stricter approach by the RIPE NCC help to mitigate this? Before the board makes its decision, we would like to hear your thoughts on this list. Kind regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

10 12

RIPE DB T&C violation by brokers
by Sergey Myasoedov 09 Jan '20

09 Jan '20

Dear RIPE NCC, members, I would like to raise an issue of misuse of the RIPE Database by the brokers. I've reported different issues to RIPE NCC, but every time I receive a reassurance that appropriate measures will be taken. I am pretty sure that broker agreements and LIR contracts should be reviewed for every case of misuse of the RIPE NCC. But this specific broker - Supplity - is still sending spam using the RIPE DB contacts and nothing has happened to them. So I would like to collect more data, whether someone else has reported their spam to NCC. And finally to ask a question why nothing is happened to their broker status. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

26 32