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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6598

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]


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