[ppml] IRTF RRG: finer allocation of IPv4 space

[Bill Darte]

Thank you Robin for you invitation and your work in this area.

Denizens of the ppml and all those interested in addressing policy and the future of Internet communications and governance should be interested in solutions to the scaling of Internet routing.  It is the bigger problem (IMO) that faces this community more than v4 exhaustion and v6 adoption.  A solution to scalable routing and more efficient allocations and assignments of addresses solve many policy issues that seem quite sticky at the moment.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Robin Whittle
Sent: Mon 11/5/2007 10:40 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] IRTF RRG: finer allocation of IPv4 space
 
Denizens of PPML may be interested in joining the IRTF Routing
Research Group list:

  http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=rrg
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/maillist.html

The RRG is discussing several ITR-ETR (Ingress Tunnel Router -
Egress Tunnel Router) schemes which are intended primarily to help
the routing system scale well with growing demand for more
multihomed end-user networks - for both IPv4 and IPv6.

I think it would be great to have more hands on deck on the RRG list
to discuss and critique the various proposals.

At some stage, the RRG will recommend to the IETF what new
architectural proposals should be developed further.  I think this
is likely to consist of one of the ITR-ETR schemes (or perhaps some
combination of bits of them) and one or more enhancements to BGP.

All of these ITR-ETR schemes enable address space to be assigned to
end-user networks in finer divisions than is currently practical
with BGP.  Each such division does not involve a BGP advertised
prefix - and in principle, individual IP addresses can be assigned.

This means all these schemes all capable of enabling new management
structures for IPv4 address space, including assigning space in
increments as small as 128, 64, 32 ... 8, 4, 2 or 1 IP addresses.

All these schemes are intended primarily to resolve the problems in
routing scaling, for both IPv4 and IPv6, with incremental deployment
and no changes to hosts or most BGP routers.  While they are all, in
principle, capable of enabling a much more efficient use of IPv4
space, for many more end-user networks, with multihoming and
portability of addresses between ISPs, only my proposal - Ivip - has
this as an explicit goal.

The proposals are:

  LISP-CONS

     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-04
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-meyer-lisp-cons-02


  LISP-NERD

     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-04
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-lisp-nerd-02

  eFIT-APT

     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jen-apt-00
     http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/07SIG_IP6WS.pdf
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-ietf-efit-00

  Ivip

     http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-00

  TRRP

     http://bill.herrin.us/network/trrp.html


Also of interest:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/pmtud-frag/
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-inetmtu-05

     Two proposals, applicable to all ITR-ETR schemes,
     for coping with the problems of Path MTU Discovery,
     MTU limits etc. in the tunnel between the ITR and
     the ETR.


  http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/routingandaddressing/
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4984

     The late 2006 IAB workshop on the routing and addressing
     crisis.


  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/comp/

     My comparison of LISP-CONS/NERD, eFIT-APT and Ivip.


  http://www.isi.edu/ant/address/
  http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann07c.pdf
  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/host-density-per-prefix/

     Two recent IPv4 ping surveys find just over 100 million
     ping-responsive IPv4 addresses, which is around 4% of
     advertised addresses.


http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf

     Geoff Huston's "train wreck" presentation, in which he
     estimates that only 5 to 20% of advertised IPv4 address
     space is actually used by a hosts.


http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf

     Randy Bush's presentation on the difficulties of introducing
     IPv6, and how every network using IPv6 will need some IPv4
     space for a long time to come.

 - Robin

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20071106/b1bd720a/attachment.htm>