[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                          S. Barber
Internet-Draft                                        Cox Communications
Intended status: Informational                                 O. Delong
Expires: March 22, 2012                               Hurricane Electric
                                                           C. Grundemann
                                                            V. Kuarsingh
                                                   Rogers Communications
                                                           B. Schliesser
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 19, 2011

           ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space


   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.

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 March 22, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   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
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Intended Use of Shared Transition Space  . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1.  CGN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  SP Services & Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.3.  Note of Caution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.1.  Global Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.2.  Private  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.3.  Class E  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.4.  Prefix Squatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.5.  Regional Re-use of Allocated Prefix  . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.6.  Consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Analysis of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Continued Operation Post-exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Delayed Need for CGN Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Recovery of Existing Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.1.  Re-deployment Where Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.2.  Return or Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4.  Impact on Allocations of RIR Inventory . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Benefit of Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.6.  IPv6 Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Analysis of Detractors' Arguments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  It Breaks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.1.  NAT is Bad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.2.  Breaks Assumptions about Address Scope . . . . . . . . 11  6to4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.3.  Potential Misuse as Private Space  . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  It's Not Needed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.1.  Nobody Will Use It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.2.  ISPs Are Not Actually Growing  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.3.  RIR IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted . . . . . 13
       4.2.4.  ISP IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted . . . . . 13
     4.3.  Address Inventory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.1.  Shared Transition Space Uses Up Address Inventory  . . 13
       4.3.2.  /10 is not Enough  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.4.  IPv6 Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.4.1.  Use IPv6 Instead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.4.2.  Delay of IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   5.  ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.1.1.  Shared Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.1.2.  Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.2.  Policy Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

1.  Introduction

   As the Internet community approaches exhaustion of unallocated IPv4
   numbers, the value of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest.
   More than ever network operators recognize the need to transition to
   the IPv6 address family.  However, the immediate necessity of
   continued IPv4 connectivity poses a near-term challenge - without
   adequate IPv4 resources, most network operators must deploy more
   efficient addressing architectures and many must deploy address-
   sharing technologies.

   In order to facilitate these operators' need for near-term IPv4
   connectivity, [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] 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 [RFC1918] address space.  By
   using the Shared Transition Space operators may deploy CGN
   [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] internal networks, extranet
   [RFC4364] communities, and/or SP-local services without consuming
   Global Unicast Addresses.

   However, given the Feb 2011 depletion of the IANA Free Pool inventory
   [NRO-IANA-exhaust] it is not currently possible for the IANA to
   reserve an IPv4 /10 prefix as recommended in
   [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request].  Thus the ARIN community
   has proposed in Draft Policy [ARIN-2011-5] the reservation of a
   Shared Transition Space from the ARIN inventory of unallocated IPv4
   numbers.  After much discussion by the ARIN community, [ARIN-2011-5]
   reached consensus and was recommended by the ARIN Advisory Council
   for approval by the ARIN Board of Trustees.

   Following the community's recommendation of [ARIN-2011-5] the ARIN
   Board requested clarification from the IAB with regard to
   responsibilities outlined in [RFC2860].  The ARIN Board received a
   response in [IAB-response] 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.  [PPML-022778]

   This memo explains the intended use and discusses the merits and
   drawbacks of using Shared Transition Space.

2.  Applicability

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

2.1.  Intended Use of Shared Transition Space

   The Shared Transition Space is intended for use by service providers
   and should not be thought of as additional RFC1918 space.  There are
   a number of specific use-cases for the Shared Transition Space.  This
   section discusses the primary scenarios envisioned at the time of
   this writing.  Equipment vendors and non-ISP network operators should
   be aware that using the Shared Transition Space outside of its
   intended scope may result in unpredictable behavior.

2.1.1.  CGN

   The primary use-case for the Shared Transition Space will be
   deployment in CGN [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] 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

   In one CGN deployment scenario sometimes referred to as NAT444
   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444], the CGN internal network is numbered with
   IPv4 addresses that are not globally routed while the end-sites are
   numbered with Private [RFC1918] 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.  [I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr]

2.1.2.  SP Services & Infrastructure

   In networks that contain local services (such as nameservers, content
   repositories or caches, etc) the Shared Transition Space will offer
   an alternative to GUA.  For instance, video content servers that are
   available only to customers directly connected to the SP network
   might be addressed from the Shared Transition Space, preserving GUA
   for services that require global connectivity.  Where these services
   are accessed by customers who have their own IPv4-only equipment, use
   of the Shared Transition Space will reduce or eliminate the need for
   NAT.  Similarly, those infrastructure elements which touch IPv4-only
   customer-managed equipment could also be numbered from the Shared
   Transition Space.  In cases where the provider manages both
   endpoints, IPv6 should be used.

2.1.3.  Note of Caution

   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

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   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.

2.2.  Alternatives

   A number of possible alternatives to Shared Transition Space have
   been proposed and/or discussed by the Internet community.  See, for
   instance, [RFC6319] for a discussion of alternatives and potential
   issues.  This section outlines these possible alternatives and
   briefly discusses their applicability.

2.2.1.  Global Unicast Addresses

   Every discussion of the Shared Transition Space begins with an
   assumption that Global Unicast Addresses (GUA) are a preferable
   choice for numbering.  This is almost always technically true.
   However, given the fundamental driver of IPv4 address exhaustion, GUA
   is not a pragmatic alternative to the Shared Transition Space.

   Additionally, if various organizations use various GUA ranges to
   number CGN zones, it will be difficult for other networks and/or
   systems to deterministically know if the endpoints are using true
   Internet reachable IPs, or if the source network may be using them as
   CGN zone space.  This situation would likely lead to additional
   technical issues during various leakage conditions, filter rule
   issues (routing) and for CDN or other third party providers who may
   be present within the source network, to name a few.

2.2.2.  Private

   In each of the use-cases for Shared Transition Space, it may be
   possible to instead use Private [RFC1918] address space.  In
   situations where all endpoints in the network are managed by a single
   organization, this may be a viable option.  However when end-sites
   are administered by different organizations and/or individuals, the
   possibility of address conflict becomes a significant risk to
   operations.  Private [RFC1918] address space is not generally
   intended to be used for purposes which cross administrative domains.
   Further, these recommendations involve use of the Shared Transition
   Space to provide services in one administrative domain to leaf
   networks which are generally single-homed to the serving
   administrative domain.  This is also a significant difference from
   the intent of Private [RFC1918] address space.

   A study of DNS traffic [v6ops-msg06187] has shown that effectively
   all of the existing Private [RFC1918] address space is currently
   being used by end-sites attached to the Internet.  While individual

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   network environments may vary in this regard, most SP operators face
   the risk that their use of Private address space will conflict with
   their customer end-sites. defined private space is not generally
   intended to be used for purposes which cross administrative domains.

   In the event of conflict, it is possible that the end-site CPE will
   fail and/or not function correctly.  Some CPE implementations are
   known to support overlapping addresses on the "inside" and "outside"
   interfaces, however many others are known to fail under such
   circumstances.  For SP operators, the Shared Transition Space offers
   a less risky alternative to GUA that retains the benefit of non-

   Also, the use of Private [RFC1918] address space on interfaces and
   hosts often causes default behaviors on such hosts which may not be
   desirable when the endpoint is actually connected to the Internet.
   There are often behavioral expectations for Internet connected
   endpoints, regardless of them being subject to a NAT.

   Incorrect affiliation of the WAN side interface being in a
   "protected" zone and/or on a trusted network may not be desirable.
   With NAT444 deployments, it is important that the endpoint (i.e.
   CPE) behave like any other Internet node.  One example of this from
   our testing was observed behaviors where some CPEs did not filter
   and/or firewall correctly when Private [RFC1918] address space was
   used on both WAN and LAN interfaces.

2.2.3.  Class E

   One proposed alternative to Shared Transition Space is the re-
   classification and use of the "Class E" address space as
   unicast.  This has been proposed, for instance, by
   [I-D.fuller-240space] and [I-D.wilson-class-e].  While this
   alternative might be possible in tightly constrained environments,
   where all of the network elements are known to support Class E
   address space, it is not generally useful in the use-cases described
   above.  At this time, a significant number of IPv4 stack
   implementations treat the Class E address space as reserved and will
   not route, forward, and/or originate traffic for that range.  For
   example, [CISCO] states that: "No addresses are allowed with the
   highest-order bits set to 1111."  For the scenarios described herein,
   it should be noted that this alternative would create additional SP
   dependencies on customer selected CPE support for Class E addressing.

2.2.4.  Prefix Squatting

   An unfortunate alternative to the Shared Transition Space is "prefix
   squatting", in which the operator re-uses another organization's IPv4

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   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

   In this scenario, the allocation may not be routed globally by the
   legitimate address holder, making it attractive for such purposes.
   Or it may be routed but "uninteresting" to the SP network's
   endpoints.  In either case there is a potential for conflict in the
   event that any end-site actually wishes to communicate with the
   legitimate address holder.  Indeed, various RIRs attempt to discover
   and "recycle" abandoned or unused IPv4 address space, making it more
   likely that such conflicts will be experienced in time.  As such,
   this alternative is to be discouraged with prejudice.

   It is important to note that there are no behavioral advantages to
   using "squat space" over using assigned "shared space".  Both options
   subject the CPE to the same general behaviors (GUA space, but not
   globally reachable).  The only real difference is the negative
   impacts of squatting (as noted above) and the advantages of a
   community coordinated and standardized prefix.

   The primary reason that any network would be likely to adopt "prefix
   squatting" is if they are faced with the operational realities of CGN
   before/without the allocation of a shared transition space.

2.2.5.  Regional Re-use of Allocated Prefix

   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

   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".

2.2.6.  Consortium

   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

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   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.

3.  Analysis of Benefits

3.1.  Continued Operation Post-exhaustion

   Availability of a Shared Transition Space helps SPs continue to meet
   the demands of IPv4 addressing and/or connectivity post exhaustion.
   For environments where CGN in a NAT444 scenario is necessary,
   addresses from this space can be used to provide addressing for the
   network between the CGN device(s) and CPE which will enable IPv4 flow
   continuity for customers using these services.  In other
   circumstances, the shared transition space allows SPs to number
   devices in the network which do not require global reachability
   without the need for fulfillment thorough an RIR.

3.2.  Delayed Need for CGN Deployment

   If operators are required to use their individually allocated GUA
   where "shared space" would have applied, e.g. for internal services,
   they will face exhaustion sooner and thus be forced to deploy CGN
   sooner as well.  Operators may be able to postpone the deployment of
   CGN by using "shared space" for internal uses, because that allows
   more efficient use of their remaining GUA in places where global
   uniqueness is truly mandatory.

   Further, without this shared transition space, some service providers
   may be forced to reclaim GUA from existing customers in order to
   deploy CGN and address the required infrastructure.  Having this
   transition space will enable deployment of CGN where it is required,
   in a manner that is less disruptive and with impact to fewer

3.3.  Recovery of Existing Addresses

   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

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   provides an option for using currently assigned space much more

3.3.1.  Re-deployment Where Needed

   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.

3.3.2.  Return or Transfer

   In cases where the operator is not deploying CGN and doesn't need the
   recovered addresses, they can be made available to others that do
   need them for connectivity to the public IPv4 Internet.  This may be
   through voluntary return to the RIR, or through transfer to another
   network operator.  For example, in the ARIN region, there are
   transfer mechanisms defined in the ARIN NRPM 8.3 [section 8.3 - Transfers to Specified Recipients"">ARIN-NRPM-8.3].

3.4.  Impact on Allocations of RIR Inventory

   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.

3.5.  Benefit of Standardization

   Standardizing on a single block will help the community develop
   standard ways of selecting, routing, filtering and managing shared
   space.  This task would be much more difficult or impractical for any
   of the alternative options.

   Standard internal routing policy and filtering can be applied
   uniformly inside network environments.  Additionally, exchange points
   between networks can have standard policies applied allowing
   operators to protect each other from CGN zone IPs leaking between
   networks.  This may not be possible with squat space since many
   operators will not divulge what space may be used and with Private
   [RFC1918] 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.

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

3.6.  IPv6 Deployments

   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.

4.  Analysis of Detractors' Arguments

4.1.  It Breaks

4.1.1.  NAT is Bad

   NAT is understood to be less than optimal [RFC6269], especially when
   implemented as CGN [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts].  That said, it is a
   necessary technology for many networks and cannot be completely
   avoided.  Since the number of IPv4 Internet endpoints will exceed the
   number of IPv4 addresses which are available for Internet
   connectivity, NATs are needed.

   While the authors agree that "NAT is bad", it must also be understood
   that shared transition space does not change the fundamental
   motivations or issues with NAT and so those problems will not be
   discussed at length here.

4.1.2.  Breaks Assumptions about Address Scope

   Some host or CPE functions incorrectly assume global reachability
   based on the type of address that is configured, potentially causing
   issues when deployed in a NAT444 scenario.  Whether an operator uses
   this proposed Shared Transition Space or some other GUA space (e.g.
   through squatting or reuse), the net effect on hosts and/or CPE
   making such assumptions about reachability is identical.  Conversely,
   with an identified Shared Transition Space hosts that make these
   mistaken assumptions can be modified to treat the identified block as
   having restricted reachability semantics.  This would not be possible
   (or at least not nearly as easy) with the other solutions.  6to4

   Although 6to4 can break in CGN scenarios using the Shared Transition
   Space, recent guidance suggests that it should be turned off by
   default.  [RFC6343] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic] Indeed, recent
   versions of operating systems de-preference 6to4 addresses as
   described in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise], mitigating effects from
   incorrect 6to4 instantiation behind a firewall that obstructs its

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011


   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.

4.1.3.  Potential Misuse as Private Space

   Shared Transition Space is intended to be used solely by Service
   Providers for IPv4 to IPv6 transition purposes.
   [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] 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.

4.2.  It's Not Needed

4.2.1.  Nobody Will Use It

   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.

4.2.2.  ISPs Are Not Actually Growing

   While customer growth for some ISPs has slowed, for many service
   providers new services are growing at a faster rate than has been
   anticipated.  Wireline voice customers for example require two-way
   communication paths to allow them to function properly.  IP enabled
   televisions is another example of devices that support video and
   voice services and require IP addresses.  The only way to maintain
   these services, which in many cases are considered lifeline, is to
   provide them with an IP address that is unique within the service
   provider network.

   Likewise, growth continues to exist in some geographical regions.
   While some areas have slower growth, as a result of significant
   penetration of Internet access, there are still many areas with unmet
   needs, growing populations, or both.

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

4.2.3.  RIR IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted

   With the IANA inventory essentially exhausted [NRO-IANA-exhaust] it
   is only a matter of time before each of the RIRs are unable to
   satisfy requests for IPv4 addresses.  [GIH-When] In fact, the APNIC
   has already allocated all but their final /8 of inventory
   [APNIC-final-slash8] 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.

4.2.4.  ISP IPv4 Inventory is Not Actually Exhausted

   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

4.3.  Address Inventory

4.3.1.  Shared Transition Space Uses Up Address Inventory

   While true that this Shared Transition Space will remove a block of
   global unicast IPv4 addresses from the free pool, it must also be
   noted that the use of the same "shared space" repeatedly across
   multiple networks will very likely increase the available pool of
   unique IPv4 addresses through operational efficiency.  For example,
   if just two operators use their own GUA /10, the Internet community
   effectively loses a /9 of unique space while if both operators use
   the same "shared" /10, the Internet community loses that single /10.
   This benefit becomes more significant as more operators use the
   Shared Transition Space.

   It remains to be seen whether the reservation of a Shared Transition
   Space will actually delay the impending exhaustion of RIRs' IPv4
   inventory.  Certainly, the availability of this Shared Transition
   Space will satisfy a number of demands that would otherwise become
   requests for GUA resources.  However, whether this translates to an
   actual reduction in requests is up to the RIRs and requesting
   organizations.  Regardless of the allocation of Shared Transition
   Space, RIR IPv4 exhaustion may happen at roughly the same time.
   However, as noted above, Shared Transition Space does provide the
   opportunity for more efficient use of the remaining RIR IPv4
   addresses.  Additionally, the reservation of a Shared Transition
   Space will enable continued deployment of IPv4 connectivity by SP
   networks beyond the free pool depletion horizon; another clear

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

4.3.2.  /10 is not Enough

   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.

4.4.  IPv6 Arguments

4.4.1.  Use IPv6 Instead

   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
   [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience].  IPv4 flow continuity will be
   required for at least several years.

   Many businesses have long procurement and fulfillment cycles which
   will need to be used to upgrade networks to support IPv6.  Also, the
   consumer (home) space is years away from being all IPv6 capable.
   Many homes are filled with IPv4 only consumer electronics, computers,
   TVs, accessories and other systems.

   There are still a number of products that are either not IPv6
   compliant, or for which the necessary criteria for being "IPv6
   compliant" is unclear or undefined.  Some examples include security
   products, a large number of software applications, and there are
   still production systems (both inside companies and as products)
   being rolled out that are not IPv6 aware.

4.4.2.  Delay of IPv6 Deployment

   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.

5.  ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

5.1.  History

5.1.1.  Shared Address Space

   Proposals for additional Private space date back at least to
   [I-D.hain-1918bis] 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 [RFC1918] pool, whereas a defining
   characteristic of Shared Transition Space is that it is distinctly
   not part of the Private [RFC1918] address pool.

   Rather, the Shared Transition Space is reserved for more narrow
   deployment scenarios, specifically for use by SPs to meet the needs
   of ongoing IPv4 connectivity during the period of IPv6 transition.
   This key feature emerged in more recent proposals such as
   [I-D.shirasaki-isp-shared-addr] in June 2008 where a proposal to set
   aside "ISP Shared Space" was made.  During discussion of these more
   recent proposals, many of the salient points where commented upon,
   including challenges with RFC1918 in the ISP NAT Zone, Avoidance of
   IP Address Conflicts, and challenges with 240/4.

   This effort was followed up by
   [I-D.weil-opsawg-provider-address-space] in July 2010 which was re-
   worked in November 2010 as
   [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request].  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 [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] and that such space does
   not reduce the need for IPv6 deployment.

   Most recently, following exhaustion of the IANA's /8 pool
   [NRO-IANA-exhaust], 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 [ARIN-2011-5].

   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.

5.1.2.  Proposal

   The following is a brief history of the proposal for Shared Address
   Space within ARIN, ultimately resulting in the recommendation of ARIN

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   Draft Policy 2011-5 [ARIN-2011-5].

   In January 2011, a policy was proposed to the ARIN policy development
   community called ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
   Address Extension [ARIN-prop-127].  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

   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 [ARIN-AC-28Jan2011], formally
   announced on PPML 3 February 2011 [ARIN-2011-5-AC].

   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."  [ARIN-2011-5-Staff]

   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.  [ARIN27.2011-5]

   Seeing an obvious need in the service provider community, the AC
   voted to send the Draft Policy to last call [ARIN-AC-13Apr2011] for
   final comments 18 April through 2 May 2011.  [ARIN-2011-5-LC]
   Following a strong show of support from the operator community during
   last call, the AC voted [ARIN-AC-19May2011] to recommend adoption of
   2011-5 to the ARIN Board of Trustees with a vote of 10 in favor and 2
   abstentions.  [ARIN-2011-5-Rec]

   Following this recommendation, ARIN staff consulted with the IAB and
   IANA as committed.  The IAB response [IAB-response] stated, in short,
   that they believed the adoption of [ARIN-2011-5] was in conflict with
   the provisions in [RFC2860] 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

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

5.2.  Policy Text

   Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5

   Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

   Date: 20 January 2011

   Policy statement:

   Updates 4.10 of the NRPM:

   A second contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be reserved to facilitate
   IPv4 address extension.  This block will not be allocated or assigned
   to any single organization, but is to be shared by Service Providers
   for internal use for IPv4 address extension deployments until
   connected networks fully support IPv6.  Examples of such needs
   include: IPv4 addresses between home gateways and NAT444 translators.


   The Internet community is rapidly consuming the remaining supply of
   unallocated IPv4 addresses.  During the transition period to IPv6, it
   is imperative that Service Providers maintain IPv4 service for
   devices and networks that are currently incapable of upgrading to
   IPv6.  Consumers must be able to reach the largely IPv4 Internet
   after exhaustion.  Without a means to share addresses, people or
   organizations who gain Internet access for the first time, or those
   who switch providers, or move to another area, will be unable to
   reach the IPv4 Internet.

   Further, many CPE router devices used to provide residential or
   small-medium business services have been optimized for IPv4
   operation, and typically require replacement in order to fully
   support the transition to IPv6 (either natively or via one of many
   transition technologies).  In addition, various consumer devices
   including IP-enabled televisions, gaming consoles, medical and family
   monitoring devices, etc. are IPv4-only, and cannot be upgraded.
   While these will eventually be replaced with dual-stack or IPv6
   capable devices, this transition will take many years.  As these are
   typically consumer-owned devices, service providers do not have
   control over the speed of their replacement cycle.  However,
   consumers have an expectation that they will continue to receive IPv4
   service, and that such devices will continue to have IPv4 Internet
   connectivity after the IPv4 pool is exhausted, even if the customer
   contracts for new service with a new provider.

   Until such customers replace their Home Gateways and all IPv4-only

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   devices with IPv6-capable devices, Service Providers will be required
   to continue to offer IPv4 services through the use of an IPv4 address
   sharing technology such as NAT444.  A recent study showed that there
   is no part of RFC1918 space which would not overlap with some IPv4
   gateways, and therefore to prevent address conflicts, new address
   space is needed.

   Service providers are currently presented with three options for
   obtaining sufficient IPv4 address space for NAT444/IPv4 extension
   deployments: (1) Request allocations under the NRPM; (2) share
   address space with other providers (this proposal); or (3) use
   address space allocated to another entity (i.e. 'squat').  Of the
   three options, option 2 (this proposal) is preferable, as it will
   minimize the number of addresses used for IPv4 extension deployments
   while preserving the authority of IANA and RIRs.

   Timetable for implementation: immediately

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
   contributions: John Curran, David Farmer, Jeffrey Finkelstein,
   William Herrin, and Dan Wing.

   The authors would also like to thank the following people for their
   review, comments, and support: Gary Buhrmaster, Chris Donley, Wes
   George, Chris Metz, Richard Von Scherr, and Lane Wigley.

7.  IANA Considerations

   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.

8.  Security Considerations

   This memo makes reference to a number of deployment scenarios that
   have unique security considerations, and the reader is advised to
   investigate these independently.

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

   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.

9.  Informative References

              APNIC, "APNIC IPv4 Address Pool Reaches Final /8",
              Apr 2011,

              ARIN, "Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space
              for IPv4 Address Extension", 2011,

              ARIN, "Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing selection of ARIN-
              prop-127 for Discussion as Draft Policy 2011-5", Feb 2011,

              ARIN, "Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Last Call for
              Draft Policy 2011-5", Apr 2011, <http://lists.arin.net/

              ARIN, "Message to ARIN-PPML, announcing Advisory Council
              meeting results Recommending 2011-5 for Board Approval",
              May 2011, <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/

              ARIN, "Message to ARIN-PPML, providing additional ARIN
              Staff Assessment of Draft Policy 2011-5", Feb 2011, <http:

              ARIN, "Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee -
              13 Apr 2011", Apr 2011,

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

              ARIN, "Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee -
              19 May 2011", May 2011,

              ARIN, "Minutes: Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Committee -
              28 Jan 2011", Jan 2011,

              ARIN, "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, section 8.3 -
              Transfers to Specified Recipients", Jul 2011,

              Donley, C., "ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for
              IPv4 Address Extension", Jan 2011, <http://lists.arin.net/

              ARIN, "ARIN XXVII Meeting - Participant Vote on 2011-5",
              Apr 2011, <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/

   [CISCO]    Cisco, "TCP/IP Overview: Class E Addresses", <http://

              Huston, G., "When?", Sep 2010,

              Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
              Network", draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-03 (work in
              progress), April 2011.

              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.

              Fuller, V., "Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address
              space", draft-fuller-240space-02 (work in progress),
              March 2008.

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

              Hain, T., "Expanded Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", draft-hain-1918bis-01 (work in progress),
              January 2005, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

              Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown,
              "Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6",
              draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04 (work in progress),
              July 2011.

              Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT
              (CGN)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-03 (work in
              progress), August 2011.

              Troan, O., "Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via
              IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05 (work in progress),
              June 2011.

              Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
              and H. Ashida, "ISP Shared Address",
              draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-06 (work in progress),
              July 2011.

              Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
              and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-04 (work
              in progress), July 2011.

              Yamaguchi, J., Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "NAT444 addressing models",
              draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-06 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

              Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., and C. Donley, "IANA Reserved
              IPv4 Prefix for IPv6 Transition",
              draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-02 (work in
              progress), September 2010.


Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

              Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
              M. Azinger, "IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared
              Transition Space",
              draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03 (work in
              progress), August 2011.

              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.

              IAB, "IAB responds to ARIN request for guidance regarding
              Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5", Jun 2011, <http://www.iab.org/

              NRO, "Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted", Feb 2011,

              "Message to ARIN-PPML, indicating the Board's disposition
              toward 2011-5", July 2011, <http://lists.arin.net/

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6319]  Azinger, M. and L. Vegoda, "Issues Associated with
              Designating Additional Private IPv4 Address Space",
              RFC 6319, July 2011.

   [RFC6343]  Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        ARIN Shared Transition Space        September 2011

              RFC 6343, August 2011.

              WIDE, "Re: [v6ops] IETF 79 Meeting minutes - Draft",
              Nov 2010, <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/

Authors' Addresses

   Stan Barber
   Cox Communications

   Email: stan.barber2@cox.com

   Owen Delong
   Hurricane Electric

   Email: owen@delong.com

   Chris Grundemann

   Email: c.grundemann@cablelabs.com

   Victor Kuarsingh
   Rogers Communications

   Email: victor.kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com

   Benson Schliesser
   Cisco Systems

   Email: bschlies@cisco.com

Barber, et al.           Expires March 22, 2012                [Page 23]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/