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
Gert, It is completely repulsive what you are doing here, me sharing an idea and the implementation of it and you wrote what you wrote. To the community: Anyone that knows me know that everything I write can be implemented, Gert didn't say that it cannot be implemented - just that modifying the networking stacks is hard - if it it is hard then better developers are needed that it will be easy for them - I'm not going to waste my time on implementing the patches to the networking stacks for Microsoft/Google/Apple/etc - they have their own engineers. I have enough experience in development to know that the reserved bit activation and ipv4 packet modification in the networking stack will not be time consuming such as creating a complete new protocol family, any operating system vendor have enough engineers that can together do it quickly. If after reading everything that I wrote you are calling it a cheap shot then you are not a professional and your background mean nothing (professional people will be able to read algorithems and methods and to know if they works or not, with implementing them in their heads, without to see it in their eyes the electrical signals flowing between machines). Keep on Gert to defame me after I explained this idea and implementation to the community, the difference between us is that I have the decency to know that I know nothing and I always strive to learn, you will not see me pat my ego like you just did, if you don't have something useful to say then go back to your two-threads working group. I didn't promise anything, as long there are hateful people like - nothing good will happen. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Gert Doering Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:09 PM To: Bruno Cordioli Cc: Elad Cohen; 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 Hi, On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:51:13AM +0200, Bruno Cordioli wrote:
I think it is appropriate to close this discussion here. Elad will eventually submit his proposed al RIPE meeting or he'll write a RFC.
Basically, this. The Internet (and the address distribution towards IANA and the RIRs) operates based on IETF standards, and as long as there is no IETF standard for IPv4+, it cannot be implemented in an interoperable way, and can not be deployed. Elad, this is your avenue: you need to demonstrate two working and interoperating implementations for two host stacks and two router stacks. Just claming "it is easy" is not sufficient. I'm with Christian here: this can not work without significant changes to the BSD socket API, to applications using this API - basically, everything on Unix/Linux - to the Windows networking API, and to routers in the ISP networks that need to decide "which customer is this packet sent to?" based on the extra bit. And I speak with a certain background on implementing network applications, running an ISP network, and debugging TCP/IP stacks. Overall, as long as no implementations can be provided (source code on github etc) this sounds like a somewhat cheap shot to make people believe you're going to solve their IPv4 problems if they just vote you to the NCC executive board. And I hope the NCC members are smart enough to not vote based on glorious promises, but on track record, provable background, etc. Gert Doering -- RIPE member -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Claiming it is "easy" to implement is no enough. Please show us a working implementation (a proof of concept), it should not be hard. Or is it hard for you but easy for anyone else to do ? If so, it shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I find that a bit sad. In France, we call people like you "Yakafokon". It means that talk is cheap, you have a supposed solution but will let others deal with the dirty work. You will not convince any of us with words. Roll up their sleeves and show us that it works somewhere else than your own mind (any supporter of your idea can join). The idea of using "unused" fields in the IPv4 header to extend adressing space is not new, it has been discussed multiple times everywhere on the Internet. We have never seen a single working implementation. You can still believe it is because the "IPv6 sect" has been actively undermining the work... For anyone claiming to have a solution for the "IPv4 exhaustion problem", do your homework before wasting the time of hundreds of mailing list participants. Thank you in advance.
Didn't you read what I wrote regarding the round table ? Each member of the round table will be responsible to update its own software and will be rewarded for it, not you will do it and not your useless friends that can do nothing but sit and let other do their hard work, I did the hard work here, you are the talker. "it shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about" - protocols are flows, you don't need to implement a protocol in order to prove it works, no one here denied that it will work besides the disturbed IPv6 fanatic that didn't agree to write any flaw publicly in order for me to confront with him, Ripe have a list of expenses of 30 million euros per year, go ask Ripe to assign a very small part of it for the implementation. Do you want me to patch any networking stack of any operating system that exist ? do I have the source code from Microsoft ? Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Denis Fondras <ripe@liopen.fr> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:42 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <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 Claiming it is "easy" to implement is no enough. Please show us a working implementation (a proof of concept), it should not be hard. Or is it hard for you but easy for anyone else to do ? If so, it shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I find that a bit sad. In France, we call people like you "Yakafokon". It means that talk is cheap, you have a supposed solution but will let others deal with the dirty work. You will not convince any of us with words. Roll up their sleeves and show us that it works somewhere else than your own mind (any supporter of your idea can join). The idea of using "unused" fields in the IPv4 header to extend adressing space is not new, it has been discussed multiple times everywhere on the Internet. We have never seen a single working implementation. You can still believe it is because the "IPv6 sect" has been actively undermining the work... For anyone claiming to have a solution for the "IPv4 exhaustion problem", do your homework before wasting the time of hundreds of mailing list participants. Thank you in advance. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elad%40netstyle.io
On 26/04/2020 12:11, Elad Cohen wrote:
...you don't need to implement a protocol in order to prove it works, ...
I think you will find that this is *exactly* how new protocols are introduced to the community. People get a working prototype running and can show (1) that it works and (2) that its perceived benefits outweigh its potential flaws. Paul.
I’m not sure what is going on here but someone tried to remove me from this list…. You know who you are ... Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list members-discuss We have received a request from 188.26.42.62 for the removal of your email address, "campbell@inca.ie <mailto:campbell@inca.ie>" from the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page:
Someone tried to do it to me as well. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ed Campbell <campbell@inca.ie> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 4:43 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <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 I’m not sure what is going on here but someone tried to remove me from this list…. You know who you are ... Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list members-discuss We have received a request from 188.26.42.62 for the removal of your email address, "campbell@inca.ie<mailto:campbell@inca.ie>" from the members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page:
And someone re-added me Please, have mercy on me! Il 26/04/20 15:45, Elad Cohen ha scritto:
Someone tried to do it to me as well.
Respectfully, Elad ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ed Campbell <campbell@inca.ie> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2020 4:43 PM *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <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 I’m not sure what is going on here but someone tried to remove me from this list….
You know who you are ...
Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list members-discuss
We have received a request from 188.26.42.62 for the removal of your email address, "campbell@inca.ie <mailto:campbell@inca.ie>" from the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page:
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/a.morreale%40tradingn...
On Apr 26, 2020, at 16:45, Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
Someone tried to do it to me as well.
Respectfully, Elad
Have you seen that South Park episode where Dildo Schwaggins and his team destroy the Danish system called Troll Trace? Perhaps something like that can be built. We already know IP address.. How hard can it be?
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ed Campbell <campbell@inca.ie> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 4:43 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
I’m not sure what is going on here but someone tried to remove me from this list….
You know who you are ...
Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list members-discuss
We have received a request from 188.26.42.62 for the removal of your email address, [...]
This one belongs to residential ISP in Romania. inetnum: 188.26.32.0 - 188.26.63.255 netname: RO-RESIDENTIAL descr: RCS & RDS Residential descr: City: Bucuresti country: RO admin-c: RDS-RIPE tech-c: RDS-RIPE tech-c: RDS2012-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: AS8708-MNT mnt-lower: AS8708-MNT created: 2012-11-09T16:12:17Z last-modified: 2013-10-03T10:47:29Z source: RIPE # Filtered role: RCS & RDS NOC address: 71-75 Dr. Staicovici address: Bucharest / ROMANIA phone: +40 21 30 10 888 fax-no: +40 21 30 10 892 abuse-mailbox: abuse@rcs-rds.ro admin-c: GEPU1-RIPE tech-c: GEPU1-RIPE nic-hdl: RDS-RIPE mnt-by: RDS-MNT remarks: — dk@
On 26-4-2020 13:55, Paul Thornton wrote:
On 26/04/2020 12:11, Elad Cohen wrote:
...you don't need to implement a protocol in order to prove it works, ...
I think you will find that this is *exactly* how new protocols are introduced to the community. People get a working prototype running and can show (1) that it works and (2) that its perceived benefits outweigh its potential flaws.
I'm having a very hard time envisioning the "easy" software application changes that are required to support this. All ipv4 code depends on the fact an ipv4 address is 4 bytes. All ipv6 code depends on the fact an ipv6 address is 16 bytes. Now this requires either 1 extra bit somewhere, or another structure describing ipv4+ in sockaddr. So for this idea to be workable, implementations are the only thing that are going to convince application developers to jump on the bandwagon. And that'll be the same struggle af for IPv6. And as long as the likes of github.com don't even do ipv6, I very much doubt that ipv4+ is going to go anywhere. Let alone that it will arrive there faster. So instead of going after "yet another pot of gold", lets get IPv6 going. just my 2 cts. --WjW
participants (7)
-
Denis Fondras -
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Ed Campbell -
Elad Cohen -
Paul Thornton -
TNC - Alessandro Morreale -
Willem Jan Withagen