ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5:
Shared Transition Space
Cox Communications
stan.barber2@cox.com
Hurricane Electric
owen@delong.com
CableLabs
c.grundemann@cablelabs.com
Rogers Communications
victor.kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com
Cisco Systems
bschlies@cisco.com
Operations
This memo discusses the applicability of a Shared Transition Space,
an IPv4 prefix designated for local use within service provider networks
during the period of IPv6 transition. This address space has been
proposed at various times in the IETF, and more recently come to
consensus within the ARIN policy development community where it was
recommended for adoption as Draft Policy 2011-5.
As the Internet community approaches exhaustion of unallocated IPv4
numbers, the value of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest.
More than ever network operators recognize the need to transition to the
IPv6 address family. However, the immediate necessity of continued IPv4
connectivity poses a near-term challenge - without adequate IPv4
resources, most network operators must deploy more efficient addressing
architectures and many must deploy address-sharing technologies.
In order to facilitate these operators' need for near-term IPv4
connectivity, proposes the
reservation of a /10 IPv4 prefix for use in Service Provider (SP)
networks. Referred to as Shared Transition Space, this address block
would facilitate SP deployment of non-unique address plans that do not
conflict with traditional Private address
space. By using the Shared Transition Space operators may deploy CGN
internal
networks, extranet communities, and/or
SP-local services without consuming Global Unicast Addresses.
However, given the Feb 2011 depletion of the IANA Free Pool inventory
it is not currently possible for
the IANA to reserve an IPv4 /10 prefix as recommended in . Thus the ARIN
community has proposed in Draft Policy the reservation of a Shared Transition
Space from the ARIN inventory of unallocated IPv4 numbers. After much
discussion by the ARIN community,
reached consensus and was recommended by the ARIN Advisory Council for
approval by the ARIN Board of Trustees.
Following the community's recommendation of the ARIN Board requested clarification from
the IAB with regard to responsibilities outlined in . The ARIN Board received a response in indicating that the IETF holds
responsibility for the reservation of specialized address blocks. Thus,
the ARIN Board believes that it is not within ARIN's authority to
unilaterally make specialized allocations of the sort proposed in Draft
Policy 2011-5.
This memo explains the intended use and discusses the merits and
drawbacks of using Shared Transition Space.
The Shared Transition Space is intended for use by service
providers and should not be thought of as additional RFC1918 space.
There are a number of specific use-cases for the Shared Transition
Space. This section discusses the primary scenarios envisioned at the
time of this writing. Equipment vendors and non-ISP network operators
should be aware that using the Shared Transition Space outside of its
intended scope may result in unpredictable behavior.
The primary use-case for the Shared Transition Space will be
deployment in CGN internal networks.
A key benefit of CGN is the ability to share a smaller number of
Global Unicast Addresses (GUA) amongst a larger number of
end-sites.
In one CGN deployment scenario sometimes referred to as NAT444
, the CGN internal
network is numbered with IPv4 addresses that are not globally routed
while the end-sites are numbered with Private addresses. In this scenario the Shared
Transition Space will be used to provide contextually unique IPv4
addresses to end-site CPE devices and intermediate infrastructure.
In networks that contain local services (such as nameservers,
content repositories or caches, etc) the Shared Transition Space
will offer an alternative to GUA. For instance, video content
servers that are available only to customers directly connected to
the SP network might be addressed from the Shared Transition Space,
preserving GUA for services that require global connectivity. Where
these services are accessed by customers who have their own
IPv4-only equipment, use of the Shared Transition Space will reduce
or eliminate the need for NAT. Similarly, those infrastructure
elements which touch IPv4-only customer-managed equipment could also
be numbered from the Shared Transition Space. In cases where the
provider manages both endpoints, IPv6 should be used.
In any case, care must be taken to ensure the Shared Transition
Space is not used in scenarios where routing may be ambiguous. For
instance, when multiple provider networks may be simultaneously
reachable the use of Shared Transition Space might result in address
conflicts etc. Conversely, operators may choose to allow (not
filter) ICMP messages from the Shared Transition Space in order to
enable Path MTU Discovery etc. This topic requires further
investigation so that best practices may be developed.
A number of possible alternatives to Shared Transition Space have
been proposed and/or discussed by the Internet community. See, for
instance, for a discussion of
alternatives and potential issues. This section outlines these
possible alternatives and briefly discusses their applicability.
Every discussion of the Shared Transition Space begins with an
assumption that Global Unicast Addresses (GUA) are a preferable
choice for numbering. This is almost always technically true.
However, given the fundamental driver of IPv4 address exhaustion,
GUA is not a pragmatic alternative to the Shared Transition
Space.
Additionally, if various organizations use various GUA ranges to
number CGN zones, it will be difficult for other networks and/or
systems to deterministically know if the endpoints are using true
Internet reachable IPs, or if the source network may be using them
as CGN zone space. This situation would likely lead to additional
technical issues during various leakage conditions, filter rule
issues (routing) and for CDN or other third party providers who may
be present within the source network, to name a few.
In each of the use-cases for Shared Transition Space, it may be
possible to instead use Private
address space. In situations where all endpoints in the network are
managed by a single organization, this may be a viable option.
However when end-sites are administered by different organizations
and/or individuals, the possibility of address conflict becomes a
significant risk to operations. Private address space is not generally intended to
be used for purposes which cross administrative domains. Further,
these recommendations involve use of the Shared Transition Space to
provide services in one administrative domain to leaf networks which
are generally single-homed to the serving administrative domain.
This is also a significant difference from the intent of Private
address space.
A study of DNS traffic has
shown that effectively all of the existing Private address space is currently being used by
end-sites attached to the Internet. While individual network
environments may vary in this regard, most SP operators face the
risk that their use of Private address space will conflict with
their customer end-sites. defined private space is not generally
intended to be used for purposes which cross administrative
domains.
In the event of conflict, it is possible that the end-site CPE
will fail and/or not function correctly. Some CPE implementations
are known to support overlapping addresses on the "inside" and
"outside" interfaces, however many others are known to fail under
such circumstances. For SP operators, the Shared Transition Space
offers a less risky alternative to GUA that retains the benefit of
non-conflict.
Also, the use of Private address
space on interfaces and hosts often causes default behaviors on such
hosts which may not be desirable when the endpoint is actually
connected to the Internet. There are often behavioral expectations
for Internet connected endpoints, regardless of them being subject
to a NAT.
Incorrect affiliation of the WAN side interface being in a
"protected" zone and/or on a trusted network may not be desirable.
With NAT444 deployments, it is important that the endpoint (i.e.
CPE) behave like any other Internet node. One example of this from
our testing was observed behaviors where some CPEs did not filter
and/or firewall correctly when Private address space was used on both WAN and LAN
interfaces.
One proposed alternative to Shared Transition Space is the
re-classification and use of the 240.0.0.0/4 "Class E" address space
as unicast. This has been proposed, for instance, by and . While this alternative might be
possible in tightly constrained environments, where all of the
network elements are known to support Class E address space, it is
not generally useful in the use-cases described above. At this time,
a significant number of IPv4 stack implementations treat the Class E
address space as reserved and will not route, forward, and/or
originate traffic for that range. For example, states that: "No addresses are allowed with
the highest-order bits set to 1111." For the scenarios described
herein, it should be noted that this alternative would create
additional SP dependencies on customer selected CPE support for
Class E addressing.
An unfortunate alternative to the Shared Transition Space is
"prefix squatting", in which the operator re-uses another
organization's IPv4 allocation for their own numbering needs. When
this approach results in the other organization's prefix being
announced globally by the "squatting" operator, it is often referred
to as "prefix hijacking". However, this discussion is focused on
scenarios in which the prefix is not announced globally but is,
rather, used for internal numbering only.
In this scenario, the allocation may not be routed globally by
the legitimate address holder, making it attractive for such
purposes. Or it may be routed but "uninteresting" to the SP
network's endpoints. In either case there is a potential for
conflict in the event that any end-site actually wishes to
communicate with the legitimate address holder. Indeed, various RIRs
attempt to discover and "recycle" abandoned or unused IPv4 address
space, making it more likely that such conflicts will be experienced
in time. As such, this alternative is to be discouraged with
prejudice.
It is important to note that there are no behavioral advantages
to using "squat space" over using assigned "shared space". Both
options subject the CPE to the same general behaviors (GUA space,
but not globally reachable). The only real difference is the
negative impacts of squatting (as noted above) and the advantages of
a community coordinated and standardized prefix.
The primary reason that any network would be likely to adopt
"prefix squatting" is if they are faced with the operational
realities of CGN before/without the allocation of a shared
transition space.
Similar to "Prefix Squatting" but significantly less dangerous,
this alternative involves the reuse by an operator of their own
address allocations. In this scenario, a network operator might use
the same prefix for multiple "regions" and/or extranet communities.
For instance, in CGN deployments the operator might reuse the same
GUA prefix across multiple geographic regions (e.g. without
announcing it globally).
Here again, it is important to note that there are no behavioral
advantages gained over a "shared space" but there is the added
community cost of each network having to dedicate a unique block of
addresses to this purpose, consuming far more resources than a
single block of "shared space".
In the event that the Internet community doesn't set aside an
IPv4 prefix for Shared Transition Space, it is possible that a
number of SP operators can come together and designate an address
block to be "shared" amongst them for an identical purpose. This
would have the same technical merits as an IETF and/or RIR sponsored
Shared Transition Space, however it would lack the efficiency of a
community coordinated and standardized prefix for such purposes,
gain no behavioral advantages, remove the deterministic nature of
managing a single range and also subjects the Internet (users of the
space) to additional risk since any member of the consortium who has
contributed space could later pull out and potentially cause
disruptions in multiple networks.
Availability of a Shared Transition Space helps SPs continue to
meet the demands of IPv4 addressing and/or connectivity post
exhaustion. For environments where CGN in a NAT444 scenario is
necessary, addresses from this space can be used to provide addressing
for the network between the CGN device(s) and CPE which will enable
IPv4 flow continuity for customers using these services. In other
circumstances, the shared transition space allows SPs to number
devices in the network which do not require global reachability
without the need for fulfillment thorough an RIR.
If operators are required to use their individually allocated GUA
where "shared space" would have applied, e.g. for internal services,
they will face exhaustion sooner and thus be forced to deploy CGN
sooner as well. Operators may be able to postpone the deployment of
CGN by using "shared space" for internal uses, because that allows
more efficient use of their remaining GUA in places where global
uniqueness is truly mandatory.
Further, without this shared transition space, some service
providers may be forced to reclaim GUA from existing customers in
order to deploy CGN and address the required infrastructure. Having
this transition space will enable deployment of CGN where it is
required, in a manner that is less disruptive and with impact to fewer
customers.
The shared transition space can also be used to number and reclaim
IPv4 addresses within provider networks which do not require global
reachability. This option can be used by many networks worldwide, it
provides an option for using currently assigned space much more
efficiently.
Operators can re-deploy recovered addresses for customers that
need them (including new / static / GUA customers), hosted servers,
etc. or to facilitate other efforts that might provide even more
efficient use of GUA space within the network. The freed addresses
can be assigned to endpoints which require IPv4 global reachablity
and thus help delay and/or remove the need for CGN.
In cases where the operator is not deploying CGN and doesn't need
the recovered addresses, they can be made available to others that
do need them for connectivity to the public IPv4 Internet. This may
be through voluntary return to the RIR, or through transfer to
another network operator. For example, in the ARIN region, there are
transfer mechanisms defined in the ARIN NRPM 8.3 .
While making Shared Transition Space available to the community may
or may not lessen the demand on the RIRs for allocations, it will help
ensure that the address resources which remain in inventory are used
most efficiently, maximizing the use of that inventory for services
that require Global Unicast Addresses.
Standardizing on a single block will help the community develop
standard ways of selecting, routing, filtering and managing shared
space. This task would be much more difficult or impractical for any
of the alternative options.
Standard internal routing policy and filtering can be applied
uniformly inside network environments. Additionally, exchange points
between networks can have standard policies applied allowing operators
to protect each other from CGN zone IPs leaking between networks. This
may not be possible with squat space since many operators will not
divulge what space may be used and with Private address space where each operator may only be
able to free up certain portions of the space which are not likely to
be consistent between networks.
Operators will need to grapple with the need to provide IPv4 based
flow continuity to customers post exhaustion. By removing the burden
of operators needing to find adequate IPv4 address space to meet the
needs that a Shared Transition Space can fulfill, they can concentrate
on the real task at hand: Deploying IPv6.
NAT is understood to be less than optimal , especially when implemented as CGN . That said, it is a
necessary technology for many networks and cannot be completely
avoided. Since the number of IPv4 Internet endpoints will exceed the
number of IPv4 addresses which are available for Internet
connectivity, NATs are needed.
While the authors agree that "NAT is bad", it must also be
understood that shared transition space does not change the
fundamental motivations or issues with NAT and so those problems
will not be discussed at length here.
Some host or CPE functions incorrectly assume global reachability
based on the type of address that is configured, potentially causing
issues when deployed in a NAT444 scenario. Whether an operator uses
this proposed Shared Transition Space or some other GUA space (e.g.
through squatting or reuse), the net effect on hosts and/or CPE
making such assumptions about reachability is identical. Conversely,
with an identified Shared Transition Space hosts that make these
mistaken assumptions can be modified to treat the identified block
as having restricted reachability semantics. This would not be
possible (or at least not nearly as easy) with the other
solutions.
Although 6to4 can break in CGN scenarios using the Shared
Transition Space, recent guidance suggests that it should be
turned off by default. Indeed, recent
versions of operating systems de-preference 6to4 addresses as
described in ,
mitigating effects from incorrect 6to4 instantiation behind a
firewall that obstructs its function.
Since the volume of impacted endpoints will be low, operators
can likely manage the disabling of 6to4 when needed. More
fundamentally, broken 6to4 should not be an issue if service
providers deploy (and user equipment supports) native IPv6
connectivity.
Shared Transition Space is intended to be used solely by Service
Providers for IPv4 to IPv6 transition purposes. The value
of a Shared Transition Space may be diminished if commonly misused
by end-sites as generic Private addresses. Thus, the reservation
must be clearly designated for use by SPs that are providing
infrastructure as described herein.
This argument is simply incorrect. Post IPv4-exaustion, any SP
that wishes to continue providing IPv4 connectivity will necessarily
deploy network architectures and technologies that require such an
address space. Thus, in absense of a designated Shared Transition
Space, operators will use GUA space in essentially the same ways
described in this memo, with or without IETF or RIR
acknowledgement.
While customer growth for some ISPs has slowed, for many service
providers new services are growing at a faster rate than has been
anticipated. Wireline voice customers for example require two-way
communication paths to allow them to function properly. IP enabled
televisions is another example of devices that support video and
voice services and require IP addresses. The only way to maintain
these services, which in many cases are considered lifeline, is to
provide them with an IP address that is unique within the service
provider network.
Likewise, growth continues to exist in some geographical regions.
While some areas have slower growth, as a result of significant
penetration of Internet access, there are still many areas with
unmet needs, growing populations, or both.
With the IANA inventory essentially exhausted it is only a matter of time before
each of the RIRs are unable to satisfy requests for IPv4 addresses.
In fact, the APNIC has already
allocated all but their final /8 of inventory and is no longer making
allocations larger than a /22 prefix. Each of the other RIRs is on a
trajectory toward exhaustion in the near future.
While some SPs have existing inventory that will outlast the RIR
inventories, this is not universally true. In fact, the distribution
of IPv4 number resources amongst operators is highly variable (based
on size, history, etc) and in the worst cases is already becoming
problematic.
While true that this Shared Transition Space will remove a block
of global unicast IPv4 addresses from the free pool, it must also be
noted that the use of the same "shared space" repeatedly across
multiple networks will very likely increase the available pool of
unique IPv4 addresses through operational efficiency. For example,
if just two operators use their own GUA /10, the Internet community
effectively loses a /9 of unique space while if both operators use
the same "shared" /10, the Internet community loses that single /10.
This benefit becomes more significant as more operators use the
Shared Transition Space.
It remains to be seen whether the reservation of a Shared
Transition Space will actually delay the impending exhaustion of
RIRs' IPv4 inventory. Certainly, the availability of this Shared
Transition Space will satisfy a number of demands that would
otherwise become requests for GUA resources. However, whether this
translates to an actual reduction in requests is up to the RIRs and
requesting organizations. Regardless of the allocation of Shared
Transition Space, RIR IPv4 exhaustion may happen at roughly the same
time. However, as noted above, Shared Transition Space does provide
the opportunity for more efficient use of the remaining RIR IPv4
addresses. Additionally, the reservation of a Shared Transition
Space will enable continued deployment of IPv4 connectivity by SP
networks beyond the free pool depletion horizon; another clear
benefit.
Although previous requests for Shared Transition Space asked for
a full /8, it has been determined by many operators that a /10 will
in fact be sufficient. A /10 provides for roughly 4 million hosts
and although many of the largest SPs have subscriber counts in the
tens of millions, none will be placing all of their subscribers
behind a single CGN. In the event that a /10 does not provide enough
addresses for an operators entire CGN deployment, it could be
re-used multiple times in distinct "NAT zones" or regions.
Although IPv6 is the strategic long term answer for IPv4 address
exhaustion, it does not immediately solve IPv4 connectivity
requirements. There is an entire eco-system which exists on the
Internet today and is not IPv6 ready at this time . IPv4 flow
continuity will be required for at least several years.
Many businesses have long procurement and fulfillment cycles
which will need to be used to upgrade networks to support IPv6.
Also, the consumer (home) space is years away from being all IPv6
capable. Many homes are filled with IPv4 only consumer electronics,
computers, TVs, accessories and other systems.
There are still a number of products that are either not IPv6
compliant, or for which the necessary criteria for being "IPv6
compliant" is unclear or undefined. Some examples include security
products, a large number of software applications, and there are
still production systems (both inside companies and as products)
being rolled out that are not IPv6 aware.
The whole Internet needs to get to IPv6 more or less at the same
time in order to avoid significant deployment of transition
technologies. This proposal may help delay some transition
technology deployment while IPv6 deployments move ahead. More IPv6
should mean less transition technology.
Proposals for additional Private space date back at least to
in April 2004. Some of these
proposals and surrounding discussion may have considered similar
use-cases as described herein. However, they were fundamentally
intended to increase the size of the
pool, whereas a defining characteristic of Shared Transition Space
is that it is distinctly not part of the Private address pool.
Rather, the Shared Transition Space is reserved for more narrow
deployment scenarios, specifically for use by SPs to meet the needs
of ongoing IPv4 connectivity during the period of IPv6 transition.
This key feature emerged in more recent proposals such as in June 2008 where a
proposal to set aside "ISP Shared Space" was made. During discussion
of these more recent proposals, many of the salient points where
commented upon, including challenges with RFC1918 in the ISP NAT
Zone, Avoidance of IP Address Conflicts, and challenges with
240/4.
This effort was followed up by in July 2010
which was re-worked in November 2010 as . These
latter efforts continued to point out the operators' need for Shared
Transition Space, with full acknowledgement that challenges may
arise with NAT444 as per and that such space does
not reduce the need for IPv6 deployment.
Most recently, following exhaustion of the IANA's /8 pool , this proposal has been discussed
by various RIR policy development participants. As described herein,
the body of ARIN policy development participants has reached
consensus and recommended a Shared Address Space policy for adoption
.
This history shows that operators and other industry contributors
have consistently identified the need for a Shared Transition Space
assignment, based on pragmatic operational needs. The previous work
has also described the awareness of the challenges of this space,
but points to this option as the most manageable and workable
solution for IPv6 transition space.
The following is a brief history of the proposal for Shared
Address Space within ARIN, ultimately resulting in the
recommendation of ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5 .
In January 2011, a policy was proposed to the ARIN policy
development community called ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space
for IPv4 Address Extension .
This policy proposal would reserve an IPv4 /10 prefix by ARIN, to be
shared by any Service Providers who wish to use it with no further
registration actions required.
After generating much discussion (over 100 posts) on the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC)
accepted the proposal as Draft Policy 2011-5 , formally announced on PPML 3
February 2011 .
On 14 February 2011, ARIN staff made the following statement with
regard to 2011-5: "In keeping with the spirit of RFC 2860 with
respect to the assignment of specialized address blocks, ARIN Staff
will consult with the IANA and the IAB regarding implementation of
this draft policy."
In the ensuing PPML discussion there was a roughly two to one
ratio of those clearly in support of the policy versus those clearly
against. ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5 was then discussed at the ARIN
XXVII public policy meeting on 12 April 2011. Following the
discussion, there was a straw poll of the room. With a total number
of people in the meeting room and remote of 116; in favor of it were
30 and against it were 15.
Seeing an obvious need in the service provider community, the AC
voted to send the Draft Policy to last call for final comments 18 April
through 2 May 2011. Following
a strong show of support from the operator community during last
call, the AC voted to
recommend adoption of 2011-5 to the ARIN Board of Trustees with a
vote of 10 in favor and 2 abstentions.
Following this recommendation, ARIN staff consulted with the IAB
and IANA as committed. The IAB response stated, in short, that they believed
the adoption of was in conflict
with the provisions in and requested
that the community re-review the operational and technical merits of
shared transition space in the IETF. That process is now underway,
with this draft an attempt at more fully analyzing said operational
and technical merits.
Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5
Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
Date: 20 January 2011
Policy statement:
Updates 4.10 of the NRPM:
A second contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be reserved to facilitate
IPv4 address extension. This block will not be allocated or assigned
to any single organization, but is to be shared by Service Providers
for internal use for IPv4 address extension deployments until
connected networks fully support IPv6. Examples of such needs include:
IPv4 addresses between home gateways and NAT444 translators.
Rationale:
The Internet community is rapidly consuming the remaining supply of
unallocated IPv4 addresses. During the transition period to IPv6, it
is imperative that Service Providers maintain IPv4 service for devices
and networks that are currently incapable of upgrading to IPv6.
Consumers must be able to reach the largely IPv4 Internet after
exhaustion. Without a means to share addresses, people or
organizations who gain Internet access for the first time, or those
who switch providers, or move to another area, will be unable to reach
the IPv4 Internet.
Further, many CPE router devices used to provide residential or
small-medium business services have been optimized for IPv4 operation,
and typically require replacement in order to fully support the
transition to IPv6 (either natively or via one of many transition
technologies). In addition, various consumer devices including
IP-enabled televisions, gaming consoles, medical and family monitoring
devices, etc. are IPv4-only, and cannot be upgraded. While these will
eventually be replaced with dual-stack or IPv6 capable devices, this
transition will take many years. As these are typically consumer-owned
devices, service providers do not have control over the speed of their
replacement cycle. However, consumers have an expectation that they
will continue to receive IPv4 service, and that such devices will
continue to have IPv4 Internet connectivity after the IPv4 pool is
exhausted, even if the customer contracts for new service with a new
provider.
Until such customers replace their Home Gateways and all IPv4-only
devices with IPv6-capable devices, Service Providers will be required
to continue to offer IPv4 services through the use of an IPv4 address
sharing technology such as NAT444. A recent study showed that there is
no part of RFC1918 space which would not overlap with some IPv4
gateways, and therefore to prevent address conflicts, new address
space is needed.
Service providers are currently presented with three options for
obtaining sufficient IPv4 address space for NAT444/IPv4 extension
deployments: (1) Request allocations under the NRPM; (2) share address
space with other providers (this proposal); or (3) use address space
allocated to another entity (i.e. 'squat'). Of the three options,
option 2 (this proposal) is preferable, as it will minimize the number
of addresses used for IPv4 extension deployments while preserving the
authority of IANA and RIRs.
Timetable for implementation: immediately
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
contributions: John Curran, David Farmer, Jeffrey Finkelstein, William
Herrin, and Dan Wing.
The authors would also like to thank the following people for their
review, comments, and support: Gary Buhrmaster, Chris Donley, Wes
George, Chris Metz, Richard Von Scherr, and Lane Wigley.
Upon notification by the IAB that that an address reservation should
be made, ARIN is willing to proceed with the implementation of its Draft
Policy 2011-5 which would result in ARIN reserving IPv4 /10 block for
shared transition. The IANA is to record the allocation of the IPv4
address block for this purpose. Alternatively, the IAB may direct the
IANA to request return of sufficient address space from ARIN's available
IPv4 number resource pool to allow the IANA to perform this reservation
directly.
This memo makes reference to a number of deployment scenarios that
have unique security considerations, and the reader is advised to
investigate these independently.
While this memo does not introduce any specific technical issues that
may be subject to detailed security considerations, it does reccommend
the reservation of a new IPv4 address space that might have unique
properties when deployed. As such, all implementors of this Shared
Transition Space are encouraged to consider carefully the best practices
associated with the use of this space, including considerations relating
to filtering, routing, etc.
Address Allocation for Private Internets
Cisco systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose
CA
95134-1706
US
+1 914 528 0090
+1 408 526 4952
yakov@cisco.com
Chrysler Corporation
25999 Lawrence Ave
Center Line
MI
48015
US
+1 810 758 8212
+1 810 758 8173
rgm3@is.chrysler.com
RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Kruislaan 409
Amsterdam
1098 SJ
NL
+31 20 5925065
+31 20 5925090
Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Kruislaan 409
Amsterdam
1098 SJ
NL
+31 20 5925065
+31 20 5925090
GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mail Stop 15-730
Mountain View
CA
94043-1389
US
+1 415 960 1980
+1 415 961 9584
lear@sgi.com
BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider
may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in
which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes
to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no
"overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE
routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data
packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core
routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
This document places on record the text of the Memorandum of
Understanding concerning the technical work of the IANA that was
signed on March 1, 2000 between the IETF and ICANN, and ratified
by the ICANN Board on March 10, 2000. This memo provides
information for the Internet community.
Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)
This document defines common requirements for Carrier-Grade NAT
(CGN).
Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
Applications
NAT444 is an IPv4 extension technology being considered by
Service Providers to continue offering IPv4 service to customers
while transitioning to IPv6. This technology adds an extra
Large-Scale NAT ("LSN") in the Service Provider network, often
resulting in two NATs. CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers
Communications independently tested the impacts of NAT444 on many
popular Internet services using a variety of test scenarios,
network topologies, and vendor equipment. This document identifies
areas where adding a second layer of NAT disrupts the
communication channel for common Internet applications.
IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space
This document requests a reserved IANA IPv4 address allocation
as Shared Transition Space to support the deployment of IPv4
address sharing technologies post IPv4 exhaustion
IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for IPv6 Transition
This document specifies the use of a reserved IANA IPv4 address
allocation to support the deployment of IPv6 transition
technologies and IPv4 address sharing technologies post IPv4
exhaustion. Service providers are in the process of implementing
IPv6 support by providing dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 services to
their end-users. One method for continued support of the IPv4
Internet post IANA IPv4 depletion is through the use of a
carrier-provided NAT444 infrastructure. Another mechanism used to
transition to IPv6 is an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel such as IPv6 Rapid
Deployment (6RD). This document details the use of an IANA
reserved address block for these purposes.
ISP Shared Address
This document defines IPv4 ISP Shared Address to be jointly
used among Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This space is
intended to be used in NAT444 model which is used during the
transition period to IPv6.
NAT444 addressing models
This document describes addressing models of NAT444. There are
some addressing models of NAT444. The addressing models have some
issues of network behaviors, operations, and addressing. This
document helps network architects to use NAT444 after IPv4 address
exhaustion.
NAT444
This document describes one of the network models that are
designed for smooth transition to IPv6. It is called NAT444 model.
NAT444 model is composed of IPv6, and IPv4 with Large Scale NAT
(LSN). NAT444 is the only scheme not to require replacing Customer
Premises Equipment (CPE) even if IPv4 address exhausted. But it
must be noted that NAT444 has serious restrictions i.e. it limits
the number of sessions per CPE so that rich applications such as
AJAX and RSS feed cannot work well. Therefore, IPv6 which is free
from such a difficulty has to be introduced into the network at
the same time. In other words, NAT444 is just a tool to make IPv6
transition easy to be swallowed. It is designed for the days IPv4
and IPv6 co-existence.
Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6
RFC 3484 describes algorithms for source address selection and
for destination address selection. The algorithms specify default
behavior for all Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
implementations. This document specifies a set of updates that
modify the algorithms and fix the known defects.
Issues with IP Address Sharing
The completion of IPv4 address allocations from IANA and the
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) is causing service providers
around the world to question how they will continue providing IPv4
connectivity service to their subscribers when there are no longer
sufficient IPv4 addresses to allocate them one per subscriber.
Several possible solutions to this problem are now emerging based
around the idea of shared IPv4 addressing. These solutions give
rise to a number of issues, and this memo identifies those common
to all such address sharing approaches. Such issues include
application failures, additional service monitoring complexity,
new security vulnerabilities, and so on. Solution-specific
discussions are out of scope.</t><t> Deploying IPv6 is
the only perennial way to ease pressure on the public IPv4 address
pool without the need for address sharing mechanisms that give
rise to the issues identified herein. This document is not an
Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for
informational purposes.
Issues Associated with Designating Additional Private IPv4
Address Space
When a private network or internetwork grows very large, it is
sometimes not possible to address all interfaces using private
IPv4 address space because there are not enough addresses. This
document describes the problems faced by those networks, the
available options, and the issues involved in assigning a new
block of private IPv4 address space.</t><t> While this
informational document does not make a recommendation for action,
it documents the issues surrounding the various options that have
been considered. This document is not an Internet Standards Track
specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address space
This memo reclassifies the address block 240.0.0.0/4 as usable
address space. While the community has not concluded whether the
block should be considered public or private, given the current
consumption rate, it is clear that the block should not be left
unused. This document also makes several recommendations on ways
that current implementations of the IP protocol stack will need to
be modified to make this address space usable.
Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Private
Use"
This document directs the IANA to designate the block of IPv4
addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (240.0.0.0/4) as
unicast address space for Private Use.
Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
(6to4) to Historic status
Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
(6to4)" IPv6 transitioning mechanism has shown that the mechanism
is unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet.
This document requests that RFC3056 and the companion document "An
Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" RFC3068 are made obsolete
and moved to historic status.
Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
This document provides advice to network operators about
deployment of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6
over IPv4. It is principally addressed to Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), including those that do not yet support IPv6,
and to Content Providers. Some advice to implementers is also
included. The intention of the advice is to minimize both user
dissatisfaction and help-desk calls. This document is not an
Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for
informational purposes.
Experiences from an IPv6-Only Network
This document discusses our experiences from moving a small
number of users to an IPv6-only network, with access to the
IPv4-only parts of the Internet via a NAT64 device. The document
covers practical experiences as well as road blocks and
opportunities for this type of a network setup. The document also
makes some recommendations about where such networks are
applicable and what should be taken into account in the network
design. The document also discusses further work that is needed to
make IPv6-only networking applicable in all environments.
ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address
Extension
CableLabs
ARIN XXVII Meeting - Participant Vote on 2011-5
ARIN
Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension
ARIN
Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing selection of ARIN-prop-127
for Discussion as Draft Policy 2011-5
ARIN
Message to ARIN-PPML, providing additional ARIN Staff
Assessment of Draft Policy 2011-5
ARIN
Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Last Call for Draft Policy
2011-5
ARIN
Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Advisory Council meeting
results Recommending 2011-5 for Board Approval
ARIN
Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 28 Jan
2011
ARIN
Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 13 Apr
2011
ARIN
Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 19 May
2011
ARIN
ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, section 8.3 - Transfers
to Specified Recipients
ARIN
IAB responds to ARIN request for guidance regarding Draft
Policy ARIN-2011-5
IAB
Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted
NRO
Re: [v6ops] IETF 79 Meeting minutes - Draft
WIDE
When?
APNIC IPv4 Address Pool Reaches Final /8
APNIC
Expanded Address Allocation for Private Internets
Message to ARIN-PPML, indicating the Board's disposition
toward 2011-5
TCP/IP Overview: Class E Addresses
Cisco