Network Working Group J. Weil
Internet-Draft Cox Communications
Intended status: Informational V. Kuarsingh
Expires: May 15, 2011 Rogers Communications
C. Donley
CableLabs
C. LILJENSTOLPE
Telstra Corp
M. Azinger
Frontier Communications
November 11, 2010
IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-01
Abstract
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.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Shared Transition Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Problems using Future Use Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
1. Introduction
Many operators are currently implimenting their IPv6 transition
plans. During the transition, continued support for heritage IPv4
only devices will be required. While most operators are well aware
of the limitations of NAT444 [I-D.shirasaki-nat444] (see
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]), it is the transition mechnism that has
the least customer impact for many carriers.
To deal with some of the NAT444 limitations, it becomes necessary for
a provider to utilize address space in the NAT444 infrastructure that
will not conflict with it's customer space.
This document requests that IANA reserve a portion of the remaining
unallocated space as Shared Transition Space for the enablement of a
clean transition strategy in provider networks.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
3. Motivation
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.
In order to provide IPv4 service to customers and/or devices once the
IPv4 address space is exhausted, Service Providers must multiplex
several subscribers behind a single IPv4 address using one of several
techniques including NAT444 . Providers need sufficient non-
[RFC1918] address space to deploy such technologies and avoid overlap
with customer use of private address space.
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
CPE 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
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444]. The challenges associated with these
deployments are identified in [I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr],
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts], and
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues].
Addressing solutions for dealing with the depletion of the IPv4
public address space and the lack of available private addresses
within large providers are presented in
[I-D.azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues] as well as
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr]. For infrastructure providers
whose customers are already using [RFC1918] space, the preferred
method for addressing the problems presented in both documents is to
direct IANA to reserve address space from its unassigned IPv4 address
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
pool for Shared Transition Space.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
4. Shared Transition Space
This document proposes the assignment of the equivalent of a /10 as
Shared Transition Space. This block could be composed of one
contiguous assignment, or several discontiguous assignments. Shared
Transition Space is IPv4 address space reserved for Infrastructure
provider use with the purpose of facilitating IPv6 transition and
IPv4 coexistence deployment. The requested block SHOULD NOT be
utilized for any purpose other than IPv4 to IPv6 transition
infrastructure. Network equipment manufacturers MUST NOT use the
assigned block in default or example device configurations.
Because Shared Transition addresses have no meaning outside of the
Infrastructure Provider, routing information about shared transition
space networks MUST NOT be propagated on interdomain links, and
packets with shared transition source or destination addresses SHOULD
NOT be forwarded across such links. Internet service providers
SHOULD filter out routing information about shared transition space
networks on ingress links.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
5. Problems using Future Use Space
[I-D.fuller-240space] and [I-D.wilson-class-e] suggest that
240.0.0.0/4 space could be used as Shared Transition Space. However,
as discussed in [I-D.azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues],
some existing network equipment does not support addresses in the
240.0.0.0/4 range. In particular, [CISCO] states that "no addresses
are allowed with the highest-order bits set to 1111". It is likely
that many home routers will not support this range, either. In order
to use this range, equipment vendors would need to update software
code for existing routers and end users would need to upgrade their
home devices. As many older home routers do not support automatic
updates, it is unlikely that enough end users would upgrade to make
the 240.0.0.0/4 range viable for Shared Transition Space use.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
6. Security Considerations
This memo does not define any protocol, and raises no security
issues. Any addresses allocated as Shared Transition Space would not
be routable on the Internet.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to reserve an IPv4 /10 from its remaining pool of
unallocated IPv4 addresses for use as Shared Transition Space.
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
8. Informative References
[CISCO] Cisco Systems, "TCP/IP Overview", <http://www.cisco.com/
univercd/cc/td/doc/product/rtrmgmt/cwhubs/starvwug/
83428.htm#xtocid74886>.
[I-D.azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues]
Azinger, M. and L. Vegoda, "Additional Private IPv4 Space
Issues",
draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-04
(work in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Chandrasekaran, A.,
and V. Ganti, "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.fuller-240space]
Fuller, V., "Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address
space", draft-fuller-240space-02 (work in progress),
March 2008.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-02 (work
in progress), July 2010.
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr]
Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
and H. Ashida, "NAT444 addressing models",
draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-04 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[I-D.wilson-class-e]
Wilson, P., Michaelson, G., and G. Huston, "Redesignation
of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Private Use"",
draft-wilson-class-e-02 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2119] "".
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
guidance and feedback:
John Brzozowski
Isaiah Connell
Greg Davies
Kirk Erichsen
Wes George
Tony Hain
Philip Matthews
John Pomeroy
Barbara Stark
Jean-Francois Tremblay
Leo Vegoda
Steven Wright
Ikuhei Yamagata
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
Authors' Addresses
Jason Weil
Cox Communications
1400 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319
USA
Email: jason.weil@cox.com
Victor Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Road
Brampton, ON L6T 0C1
Canada
Email: victor.kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com
Chris Donley
CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
USA
Email: c.donley@cablelabs.com
Christopher Liljenstolpe
Telstra Corp
7/242 Exhibition Street
Melbourne, VIC 316
AU
Phone: +61 3 8647 6389
Fax:
Email: cdl@asgaard.org
URI:
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request November 2010
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
Vancouver, WA
US
Phone: +1.360.513.2293
Fax:
Email: marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com
URI:
Weil, et al. Expires May 15, 2011 [Page 15]
