One document matched: draft-ohta-address-allocation-00.txt

INTERNET DRAFT                                                   M. Ohta
draft-ohta-address-allocation-00.txt       Tokyo Institute of Technology
                                                            Geoff Huston
                                                     Telstra Corporation
                                                         Masaki Hirabaru
                                                     Merit Network, Inc.
                                                               Jun Murai
                                                         Keio University
                                                                May 2000

           Usage Based Address Allocation Considered Harmful

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (May/1/2000).  All Rights
   Reserved.

Abstract

   The current usage based IPv4 address assignment policies might have
   prolonged the useful lifetime of IPv4 address space but this has to
   the detriment of the the end-to-end architecture of the Internet.
   This memo proposes the adoption of an address assignment strategy
   that releases large blocks of IPv4 address space into the Internet.
   The objective of this policy is to encourage healthy Internet
   deployment models with end-to-end transparency and association of
   permanent connectivity with a stable IP address. This is intended to
   encourage provider support for open transparent Internet service
   environments that can be sustained with the adoption of IPv6.



M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


Introduction

   Current address allocation policies [1] [2] [3] are primarily
   concerned with the conservation of the remaining unallocated IPv4
   address space, and the suppression of rapid growth of the Internet
   routing tables. The criteria for address allocation is based on
   demonstrable need in terms of number of connected hosts and the
   nature of the intended deployment.

   Such allocation policies place a significant administrative overhead
   on parties wishing to obtain IPv4 address space. These overheads are
   compounded through the use of provider-based address allocation and
   associated CIDR blocks.  Renumbering may be required if the client
   network grows so that it requires a larger address block to encompass
   all connected systems. Renumbering can be a painful and very
   expensive exercise, and the costs of such renumbering exercises often
   outweighs, from the administrative point of view of ISPs, any
   potential benefit for the ISPs to use globally unique addresses.

   Such considerations have lead to the widespread promotion of dynamic
   address translation tools, such as NAT. While NAT allows the client
   network to grow using private address space, and switch providers
   with considerable ease, the cost is one of a reduction in
   functionality and utility. NAT fundamentally affects the end-to-end
   transparency of the Internet architectural model [4], and impairs the
   concept of open global connectivity supported by the Internet.

   As a result, the Internet is dissolving into a loosely coupled
   collection of IP based networks with no end-to-end transparency [5].

   Instead, we should keep the architectural principles of the Internet
   [4] and, before the IPv4 address space is completely exhausted,
   migrate to IPv6.

   The existing address allocation policies do not have a long term
   stable future.  Either the conservation principle will require ever
   stricter implementation of usage policies to match the dwindling size
   of the remaining pool of unallocated IP addresses, or the previously
   allocated address space will need to be freed up into an open trading
   model, with consequent implications on the routability of the
   resultant system [6]. Both of these outcomes further encourage the
   fragmentation of the Internet through increasing use of NAT
   techniques as the premium for the use of routable IPv4 space
   escalates.

   It is now time to consider adoption of an alternative IPv4 allocation
   policy. The primary objective of such a policy should be the ordered
   migration of the Internet into a larger address space which can



M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


   accommodate the known deployment requirements and also accommodate
   likely medium term future deployment scenarios. Such a policy fosters
   the continued growth of the Internet while at the same time does not
   place extraneous limitations on application models that have to
   operate in an end-to-end fashion across the network.

   Continued reliance on usage-based address allocation policies is
   harmful to the Internet. The ever decreasing size of the unallocated
   address pool, coupled with the increasing demand for addresses in the
   expanding network creates further pressures to push the network
   growth into private address space, and attempt to glue these networks
   into the Internet by using specific translation gateways that are not
   transparent to all application and security models. The harm is
   caused by the continued illusion of a single cohesive Internet,
   conflicting with the reality of a loosely coupled collection of
   completely autonomous network realms whose interconnection is poorly
   maintained and where applications cannot operate in an any-to-any
   connection mode.  In short the concept of "one cohesive Internet" is
   being lost, partly because of the usage based address allocation.

   Usage based address allocation is considered harmful.

The Assignment Plan

   A large block of IPv4 address space should be allocated to an ISP, if
   the ISP

      Provides full time Internet connectivity. On-demand connectivity
      to a host through PPP or DHCP is not useful to deliver packets to
      the host which has not demanded the connectivity merely because
      the host has no packets to send and, in this memo, is not
      considered to be the full time connectivity.

      Allocate all the end users a globally unique block of IPv4
      addresses /29 or more.

      Allocate the end users who request more space a globally unique
      block of IPv4 addresses /27 or more without additional charge.

      Provide all the end users experimental service of IPv6 Internet
      connectivity.

      Allocate all the end users a block of 64K IPv6 subnets or more.

      Delegate the end users who request their own management of DNS
      reverse lookup the DNS domains of allocated addresses without
      additional charge.




M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


   When the ISP needs more addresses, multiple address blocks should be
   allocated with no renumbering requested.

The More Restricted Assignment Plan

   Such an address allocation policy has the potential to increase the
   consumption of the unallocated IPv4 address pool, and there will be a
   consequent need to formulate an refined IPv4 address allocation
   policy that would, in all probability, be used to allocate the final
   remaining IPv4 address blocks. At this stage the primary objective of
   the address allocation policy is to provide a very strong incentive
   for migration of the network base to IPv6. One way to achieve this is
   with the adoption of an additional restriction on the above address
   allocation policy, namely:

      No IPv4 address space should be allocated to an ISP, unless the
      ISP support fully operational fully transparent IPv6 service with
      at least 64K IPv6 subnets to all the end users.

Security Considerations

   Many security models use the end systems' allocated IP addresses as
   part of the means of authentication of the identity of the remote
   entity.

   Without globally unique addresses, it is difficult, if not
   impossible, to use the IP addresses for such authentication.

Acknowledgements

   The Authors are grateful to useful comments from Randy Bush.

References

   [1] K. Hubbard, M. Kosters, D. Conrad, D. Karrenberg, J. Postel,
   "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines", RFC 2050, November
   1996.

   [2] "Policies for Address Space Management in the Asia Pacific
   Region", APNIC, http://www.apnic.net/docs/add-manage-policy.html,
   January 2000.

   [3] "ISP Guidelines for Requesting Initial IP Address Space", ARIN,
   http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html.

   [4] B. Carpenter, "Architectural Principles of the Internet", RFC
   1958, June 1996.




M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


   [5] B. Carpenter, "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775, February 2000.

   [6] G.  Huston, "Observations on the Management of the Internet
   Address Space", RFC 1744, December 1994.

Authors' Addresses

   Masataka Ohta
   Tokyo Institute of Technology
   2-12-1, O-okayama, Meguro-ku,
   Tokyo 152, JAPAN

   Phone: +81-3-5734-3299
   Fax: +81-3-5734-3415
   EMail: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp

   Geoff Huston
   Telstra Corporation
   5/490 Northbourne Ave, Dickson, ACT 2602
   AUSTRARIA

   EMail: gih@telstra.net

   Masaki Hirabaru
   Merit Network, Inc.
   4251 Plymouth Road, Suite 2000
   Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785, USA

   Phone: +1-734-764-9430
   Fax:   +1-734-647-3185
   EMail: masaki@merit.edu

   Jun Murai
   Keio University
   5322 Endo, Fujisawa
   Kanagawa 252, JAPAN

   Fax: +81-466-49-1101
   EMail: jun@wide.ad.jp

   A mailing list is set up for the discussion at:

      Restoring The Transparency <rtt@real-internet.org>

   To subscribe, send a mail containing a single line of

      subscribe your name




M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


   to

      rtt-ctl@real-internet.org
















































M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFT          UBAA Considered Harmful                 May 2000


Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (May/1/2000).  All Rights
   Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.























M. Ohta               Expires on November 1, 2000               [Page 7]