One document matched: draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-02"
ipr="trust200902" submissionType="independent">
<front>
<title abbrev="ARIN Shared Transition Space">ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5:
Shared Transition Space</title>
<author fullname="Stan Barber" initials="S." surname="Barber">
<organization>Cox Communications</organization>
<address>
<email>stan.barber2@cox.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Owen Delong" initials="O." surname="Delong">
<organization>Hurricane Electric</organization>
<address>
<email>owen@delong.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Chris Grundemann" initials="C." surname="Grundemann">
<organization>CableLabs</organization>
<address>
<email>c.grundemann@cablelabs.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Victor Kuarsingh" initials="V." surname="Kuarsingh">
<organization>Rogers Communications</organization>
<address>
<email>victor.kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Benson Schliesser" initials="B." surname="Schliesser">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<email>bschlies@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="31" month="August" year="2011" />
<area>Operations</area>
<workgroup></workgroup>
<keyword></keyword>
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">
<t>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.</t>
<t>In order to facilitate these operators' need for near-term IPv4
connectivity, <xref
target="I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request"></xref> 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 <xref target="RFC1918"></xref> address
space. By using the Shared Transition Space operators may deploy CGN
<xref target="I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements"></xref> internal
networks, extranet <xref target="RFC4364"></xref> communities, and/or
SP-local services without consuming Global Unicast Addresses.</t>
<t>However, given the Feb 2011 depletion of the IANA Free Pool inventory
<xref target="NRO-IANA-exhaust"></xref> it is not currently possible for
the IANA to reserve an IPv4 /10 prefix as recommended in <xref
target="I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request"></xref>. Thus the ARIN
community has proposed in Draft Policy <xref
target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref> the reservation of a Shared Transition
Space from the ARIN inventory of unallocated IPv4 numbers. After much
discussion by the ARIN community, <xref target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref>
reached consensus and was recommended by the ARIN Advisory Council for
approval by the ARIN Board of Trustees.</t>
<t>Following the community's recommendation of <xref
target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref> the ARIN Board requested clarification from
the IAB with regard to responsibilities outlined in <xref
target="RFC2860"></xref>. The ARIN Board received a response in <xref
target="IAB-response"></xref> 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. <xref target="PPML-022778"></xref></t>
<t>This memo explains the intended use and discusses the merits and
drawbacks of using Shared Transition Space.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Applicability" title="Applicability">
<section title="Intended Use of Shared Transition Space">
<t>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.</t>
<section title="CGN">
<t>The primary use-case for the Shared Transition Space will be
deployment in CGN <xref
target="I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements"></xref> 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.</t>
<t>In one CGN deployment scenario sometimes referred to as NAT444
<xref target="I-D.shirasaki-nat444"></xref>, the CGN internal
network is numbered with IPv4 addresses that are not globally routed
while the end-sites are numbered with Private <xref
target="RFC1918"></xref> 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.
<xref target="I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr"></xref></t>
</section>
<section title="Extranet">
<t>Another use-case for the Shared Transition Space is in building
private Extranet community networks. In these networks, multiple
end-sites administered by different organizations are connected
together via VPN technology. Because different organizations may be
using Private address space internally, an Extranet addressing plan
is often unable to effectively use Private address space without
conflicting. The Shared Transition Space will provide an alternative
to the use of GUA space in such a scenario.</t>
</section>
<section title="SP Services & Infrastructure">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Note of Caution">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Alternatives">
<t>A number of possible alternatives to Shared Transition Space have
been proposed and/or discussed by the Internet community. See, for
instance, <xref target="RFC6319"></xref> for a discussion of
alternatives and potential issues. This section outlines these
possible alternatives and briefly discusses their applicability.</t>
<section title="Global Unicast Addresses">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Private">
<t>In each of the use-cases for Shared Transition Space, it may be
possible to instead use Private <xref target="RFC1918"></xref>
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.</t>
<t>A study of DNS traffic <xref target="v6ops-msg06187"></xref> has
shown that effectively all of the existing Private <xref
target="RFC1918"></xref> 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Also, the use of Private <xref target="RFC1918"></xref> 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.</t>
<t>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 <xref
target="RFC1918"></xref> address space was used on both WAN and LAN
interfaces.</t>
</section>
<section title="Class E">
<t>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 <xref
target="I-D.fuller-240space"></xref> and <xref
target="I-D.wilson-class-e"></xref>. 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 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Prefix Squatting">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Regional Re-use of Allocated Prefix">
<t>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).</t>
<t>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".</t>
</section>
<section title="Consortium">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Analysis" title="Analysis of Benefits">
<section title="Continued Operation Post-exhaustion">
<t>Availability of a Shared Transition Space helps SPs continue to
meet the demands of IPv4 address 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Delayed Need for CGN Deployment">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Recovery of Existing Addresses">
<t>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.</t>
<section title="Re-deployment Where Needed">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Return or Transfer">
<t>In cases where the operator doesn't need the recovered addresses,
they can be made available to others that do need them. 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 <xref
target="ARIN-NRPM-8.3"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Impact on Allocations of RIR Inventory">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Benefit of Standardization">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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 <xref
target="RFC1918"></xref> 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="IPv6 Deployments">
<t>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.</t>
<t>Endless cycles can be avoided where operators squat, free up space
and/or segment networks in an effort to find valid IPv4 space. The
saved effort, time and cost can be re-directed to provide quality IPv6
connectivity therefore expediting the removal of the overall need for
IPv4 addresses and connectivity.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Analysis of Detractors' Arguments">
<section title="It Breaks">
<section title="NAT is Bad">
<t>NAT is understood to be less than optimal <xref
target="RFC6269"></xref>, especially when implemented as CGN <xref
target="I-D.donley-nat444-impacts"></xref>. 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Breaks Bad Host Assumptions">
<t>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 bad
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.</t>
<section title="6to4">
<t>Although 6to4 can break in CGN scenarios using the Shared
Transition Space, recent guidance suggests that it should be
turned off by default. <xref target="RFC6343"></xref> <xref
target="I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic"></xref> Indeed, recent
versions of operating systems de-preference 6to4 addresses as
described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise"></xref>,
mitigating effects from incorrect 6to4 instantiation behind a
firewall that obstructs its function.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Potential Misuse as Private Space">
<t>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.</t>
<t>This is not a technical issue. As with any technology, the
opportunity exists for a misuse. This however should not shroud the
strong benefits of the shared address space option. Many
technologies in use today can be used correctly or misused. This
does not prevent the community from introducing those technologies
since the good far outweighs the bad.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="It's Not Needed">
<section title="Nobody Will Use It">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="ISPs Are Not Actually Growing">
<t>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. In many cases the protocols
that allow these devices to work have embedded IP addresses that do
not work with NAT. 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="RIR IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted">
<t>With the IANA inventory essentially exhausted <xref
target="NRO-IANA-exhaust"></xref> it is only a matter of time before
each of the RIRs are unable to satisfy requests for IPv4 addresses.
<xref target="GIH-When"></xref> In fact, the APNIC has already
allocated all but their final /8 of inventory <xref
target="APNIC-final-slash8"></xref> 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="ISP IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Address Inventory">
<section title="Shared Transition Space Uses Up Address Inventory">
<t>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.</t>
<t>Even if the Shared Transition Space fails to alleviate near-term
demand on RIR inventories, for whatever reason, the reservation of a
Shared Transition Space will enable continued deployment of IPv4
connectivity by SP networks beyond that horizon - a clear
benefit.</t>
</section>
<section title="/10 is not Enough">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="It Won't Delay RIR Exhaustion">
<t>It remains to be seen whether the reservation of a Shared
Transition Space will 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, shared transition space does provide the opportunity for
more efficient use of the remaining RIR IPv4 addresses.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IPv6 Arguments">
<section title="Use IPv6 Instead">
<t>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 <xref
target="I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience"></xref>. IPv4 flow
continuity will be required for at least several years.</t>
<t>Many businesses have long procurement and fulfilment 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Delay of IPv6 Deployment">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Policy" title="ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5">
<section title="History">
<section title="Shared Address Space">
<t>Proposals for additional Private space date back at least to
<xref target="I-D.hain-1918bis"></xref> 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 <xref target="RFC1918"></xref>
pool, whereas a defining characteristic of Shared Transition Space
is that it is distinctly not part of the Private <xref
target="RFC1918"></xref> address pool.</t>
<t>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 <xref
target="I-D.shirasaki-isp-shared-addr"></xref> 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.</t>
<t>This effort was followed up by <xref
target="I-D.weil-opsawg-provider-address-space"></xref> in July 2010
which was re-worked in November 2010 as <xref
target="I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request"></xref>. 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 <xref
target="I-D.donley-nat444-impacts"></xref> and that such space does
not reduce the need for IPv6 deployment.</t>
<t>Most recently, following exhaution of the IANA's /8 pool <xref
target="NRO-IANA-exhaust"></xref>, 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
<xref target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref>.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Proposal">
<t>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 <xref
target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref>.</t>
<t>In January 2011, a policy was proposed to the ARIN policy
development community called ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space
for IPv4 Address Extension <xref target="ARIN-prop-127"></xref>.
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.</t>
<t>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 <xref
target="ARIN-AC-28Jan2011"></xref>, formally announced on PPML 3
February 2011 <xref target="ARIN-2011-5-AC"></xref>.</t>
<t>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." <xref target="ARIN-2011-5-Staff"></xref></t>
<t>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. <xref target="ARIN27.2011-5"></xref></t>
<t>Seeing an obvious need in the service provider community, the AC
voted to send the Draft Policy to last call <xref
target="ARIN-AC-13Apr2011"></xref> for final comments 18 April
through 2 May 2011. <xref target="ARIN-2011-5-LC"></xref> Following
a strong show of support from the operator community during last
call, the AC voted <xref target="ARIN-AC-19May2011"></xref> to
recommend adoption of 2011-5 to the ARIN Board of Trustees with a
vote of 10 in favor and 2 abstentions. <xref
target="ARIN-2011-5-Rec"></xref></t>
<t>Following this recommendation, ARIN staff consulted with the IAB
and IANA as committed. The IAB response <xref
target="IAB-response"></xref> stated, in short, that they believed
the adoption of <xref target="ARIN-2011-5"></xref> was in conflict
with the provisions in <xref target="RFC2860"></xref> 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Policy Text">
<t>Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5</t>
<t>Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension</t>
<t>Date: 20 January 2011</t>
<t>Policy statement:</t>
<t>Updates 4.10 of the NRPM:</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Rationale:</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Timetable for implementation: immediately</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
contributions: John Curran, David Farmer, Jeffrey Finkelstein, William
Herrin, and Dan Wing.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>This memo makes reference to a number of deployment scenarios that
have unique security considerations, and the reader is advised to
investigate these independently.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC1918">
<front>
<title>Address Allocation for Private Internets</title>
<author fullname="Yakov Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter">
<organization>Cisco systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134-1706</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 914 528 0090</phone>
<facsimile>+1 408 526 4952</facsimile>
<email>yakov@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Robert G. Moskowitz" initials="R."
surname="Moskowitz">
<organization>Chrysler Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>25999 Lawrence Ave</street>
<city>Center Line</city>
<region>MI</region>
<code>48015</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 810 758 8212</phone>
<facsimile>+1 810 758 8173</facsimile>
<email>rgm3@is.chrysler.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Daniel Karrenberg" initials="D."
surname="Karrenberg">
<organization>RIPE Network Coordination Centre</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Kruislaan 409</street>
<city>Amsterdam</city>
<region></region>
<code>1098 SJ</code>
<country>NL</country>
</postal>
<phone>+31 20 5925065</phone>
<facsimile>+31 20 5925090</facsimile>
<email>Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Geert Jan de Groot" initials="G." surname="Groot">
<organization>RIPE Network Coordination Centre</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Kruislaan 409</street>
<city>Amsterdam</city>
<region></region>
<code>1098 SJ</code>
<country>NL</country>
</postal>
<phone>+31 20 5925065</phone>
<facsimile>+31 20 5925090</facsimile>
<email>GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Eliot Lear" initials="E." surname="Lear">
<organization>Silicon Graphics, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.</street>
<street>Mail Stop 15-730</street>
<city>Mountain View</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94043-1389</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 415 960 1980</phone>
<facsimile>+1 415 961 9584</facsimile>
<email>lear@sgi.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="February" year="1996" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="5" />
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1918" />
<format octets="22270"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1918.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4364">
<front>
<title>BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)</title>
<author fullname="E. Rosen" initials="E." surname="Rosen">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2006" />
<abstract>
<t>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]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4364" />
<format octets="116446"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4364.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC2860">
<front>
<title>Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority</title>
<author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." surname="Carpenter">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="F. Baker" initials="F." surname="Baker">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="M. Roberts" initials="M." surname="Roberts">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2000" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2860" />
<format octets="12361"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements">
<front>
<title>Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)</title>
<author fullname="Simon Perreault" initials="S" surname="Perreault">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Ikuhei Yamagata" initials="I" surname="Yamagata">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Shin Miyakawa" initials="S" surname="Miyakawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Akira Nakagawa" initials="A" surname="Nakagawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Hiroyuki Ashida" initials="H" surname="Ashida">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="18" month="August" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>This document defines common requirements for Carrier-Grade NAT
(CGN).</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-03" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-03.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.donley-nat444-impacts">
<front>
<title>Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
Applications</title>
<author fullname="Chris Donley" initials="C" surname="Donley">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Lee Howard" initials="L" surname="Howard">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Victor Kuarsingh" initials="V" surname="Kuarsingh">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Abishek Chandrasekaran" initials="A"
surname="Chandrasekaran">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Vivek Ganti" initials="V" surname="Ganti">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="25" month="October" year="2010" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request">
<front>
<title>IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space</title>
<author fullname="Jason Weil" initials="J" surname="Weil">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Victor Kuarsingh" initials="V" surname="Kuarsingh">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Chris Donley" initials="C" surname="Donley">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Christopher Liljenstolpe" initials="C"
surname="Liljenstolpe">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Marla Azinger" initials="M" surname="Azinger">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="2" month="August" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.weil-opsawg-provider-address-space">
<front>
<title>IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for IPv6 Transition</title>
<author fullname="Jason Weil" initials="J" surname="Weil">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Victor Kuarsingh" initials="V" surname="Kuarsingh">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Chris Donley" initials="C" surname="Donley">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="24" month="September" year="2010" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-02" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-02.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.shirasaki-isp-shared-addr">
<front>
<title>ISP Shared Address</title>
<author fullname="Ikuhei Yamagata" initials="I" surname="Yamagata">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Shin Miyakawa" initials="S" surname="Miyakawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Akira Nakagawa" initials="A" surname="Nakagawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Jiro Yamaguchi" initials="J" surname="Yamaguchi">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Hiroyuki Ashida" initials="H" surname="Ashida">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="10" month="July" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-06" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-06.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr">
<front>
<title>NAT444 addressing models</title>
<author fullname="Jiro Yamaguchi" initials="J" surname="Yamaguchi">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Yasuhiro Shirasaki" initials="Y"
surname="Shirasaki">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Shin Miyakawa" initials="S" surname="Miyakawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Akira Nakagawa" initials="A" surname="Nakagawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Hiroyuki Ashida" initials="H" surname="Ashida">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="10" month="July" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-06" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-06.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.shirasaki-nat444">
<front>
<title>NAT444</title>
<author fullname="Ikuhei Yamagata" initials="I" surname="Yamagata">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Yasuhiro Shirasaki" initials="Y"
surname="Shirasaki">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Akira Nakagawa" initials="A" surname="Nakagawa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Jiro Yamaguchi" initials="J" surname="Yamaguchi">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Hiroyuki Ashida" initials="H" surname="Ashida">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="10" month="July" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-shirasaki-nat444-04" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirasaki-nat444-04.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise">
<front>
<title>Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6</title>
<author fullname="Arifumi Matsumoto" initials="A"
surname="Matsumoto">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Jun-ya Kato" initials="J" surname="Kato">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Tomohiro Fujisaki" initials="T" surname="Fujisaki">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Tim Chown" initials="T" surname="Chown">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="1" month="July" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6269">
<front>
<title>Issues with IP Address Sharing</title>
<author fullname="M. Ford" initials="M." surname="Ford">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="A. Durand" initials="A." surname="Durand">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="P. Levis" initials="P." surname="Levis">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="P. Roberts" initials="P." surname="Roberts">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6269" />
<format octets="71660"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6269.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6319">
<front>
<title>Issues Associated with Designating Additional Private IPv4
Address Space</title>
<author fullname="M. Azinger" initials="M." surname="Azinger">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="L. Vegoda" initials="L." surname="Vegoda">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="July" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6319" />
<format octets="26939"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6319.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.fuller-240space">
<front>
<title>Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address space</title>
<author fullname="Vince Fuller" initials="V" surname="Fuller">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="25" month="March" year="2008" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-fuller-240space-02" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fuller-240space-02.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.wilson-class-e">
<front>
<title>Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Private
Use"</title>
<author fullname="Paul Wilson" initials="P" surname="Wilson">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="George Michaelson" initials="G"
surname="Michaelson">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Geoff Huston" initials="G" surname="Huston">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="29" month="September" year="2008" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-wilson-class-e-02" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-02.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic">
<front>
<title>Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
(6to4) to Historic status</title>
<author fullname="Ole Troan" initials="O" surname="Troan">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="24" month="June" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6343">
<front>
<title>Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment</title>
<author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." surname="Carpenter">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6343" />
<format octets="51496"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6343.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience">
<front>
<title>Experiences from an IPv6-Only Network</title>
<author fullname="Jari Arkko" initials="J" surname="Arkko">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Ari Keranen" initials="A" surname="Keranen">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date day="26" month="April" year="2011" />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-03" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-03.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-prop-127"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-January/019278.html">
<front>
<title>ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address
Extension</title>
<author fullname="Chris Donley" initials="C." surname="Donley">
<organization>CableLabs</organization>
</author>
<date day="20" month="Jan" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN27.2011-5"
target="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_6">
<front>
<title>ARIN XXVII Meeting - Participant Vote on 2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="12" month="Apr" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-2011-5"
target="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_5.html">
<front>
<title>Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-2011-5-AC"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-February/019579.html">
<front>
<title>Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing selection of ARIN-prop-127
for Discussion as Draft Policy 2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="3" month="Feb" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-2011-5-Staff"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-February/019805.html">
<front>
<title>Message to ARIN-PPML, providing additional ARIN Staff
Assessment of Draft Policy 2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="14" month="Feb" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-2011-5-LC"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-April/020808.html">
<front>
<title>Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Last Call for Draft Policy
2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="18" month="Apr" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-2011-5-Rec"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-May/022331.html">
<front>
<title>Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Advisory Council meeting
results Recommending 2011-5 for Board Approval</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="24" month="May" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-AC-28Jan2011"
target="https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2011_0128.html">
<front>
<title>Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 28 Jan
2011</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date month="Jan" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-AC-13Apr2011"
target="https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2011_0413.html">
<front>
<title>Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 13 Apr
2011</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date month="Apr" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-AC-19May2011"
target="https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2011_0519.html">
<front>
<title>Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee - 19 May
2011</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ARIN-NRPM-8.3"
target="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3">
<front>
<title>ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, section 8.3 - Transfers
to Specified Recipients</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="1" month="Jul" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IAB-response"
target="http://www.iab.org/2011/06/iab-responds-to-arin-request-for-guidance-regarding-draft-policy-arin-2011-5/">
<front>
<title>IAB responds to ARIN request for guidance regarding Draft
Policy ARIN-2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>IAB</organization>
</author>
<date day="27" month="Jun" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="NRO-IANA-exhaust"
target="http://www.nro.net/news/ipv4-free-pool-depleted">
<front>
<title>Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted</title>
<author>
<organization>NRO</organization>
</author>
<date day="3" month="Feb" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="v6ops-msg06187"
target="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06187.html">
<front>
<title>Re: [v6ops] IETF 79 Meeting minutes - Draft</title>
<author fullname="Akira Kato">
<organization>WIDE</organization>
</author>
<date day="16" month="Nov" year="2010" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="GIH-When"
target="http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-10/when.html">
<front>
<title>When?</title>
<author fullname="Geoff Huston" initials="G" surname="Huston">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Sep" year="2010" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="APNIC-final-slash8"
target="http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8">
<front>
<title>APNIC IPv4 Address Pool Reaches Final /8</title>
<author>
<organization>APNIC</organization>
</author>
<date day="15" month="Apr" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.hain-1918bis">
<front>
<title>Expanded Address Allocation for Private Internets</title>
<author fullname="Tony Hain" initials="T" surname="Hain">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2005" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-hain-1918bis-01" />
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-01.txt"
type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="PPML-022778"
target="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-July/022778.html">
<front>
<title>Message to ARIN-PPML, indicating the Board's disposition
toward 2011-5</title>
<author>
<organization>ARIN</organization>
</author>
<date day="7" month="July" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:36:39 |