Operations and Management Area Working J. Weil
Group Time Warner Cable
Internet-Draft V. Kuarsingh
Intended status: Informational Rogers Communications
Expires: January 9, 2012 C. Donley
CableLabs
C. LILJENSTOLPE
Telstra Corp
M. Azinger
Frontier Communications
July 8, 2011
IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-02
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 January 9, 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
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 January 9, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
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. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
1. Introduction
Many operators are currently implementing 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 Carrier Grade NAT, particularly NAT444
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444] (see [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]), it is the
transition mechanism that has the least customer impact for many
carriers.
To deploy Carrier Grade NAT, it becomes necessary for a provider to
create an inside address pool that will not conflict with its
customer address space. This document requests that IANA reserve a
/10 of IPv4 addresses to use as Shared Transition Space. As IANA has
exhausted its pool of addresses, one or more RIR(s) or legacy address
holder(s) will need to supply IANA with such addresses (e.g. per ARIN
Draft Policy 2011-5 [ARIN]).
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
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 January 9, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
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 or Carrier Grade NAT. 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, as described in
[I-D.bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space] and [ARIN], the preferred
method for addressing the problems presented in both documents is to
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
direct IANA to reserve address space for Shared Transition Space.
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
4. Shared Transition Space
This document proposes the assignment of a /10 as Shared Transition
Space. 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 as "inside"
addresses in a carrier NAT environment (e.g. between the CGN and
customer CPE devices) or for other 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 January 9, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
5. 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 January 9, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to reserve an IPv4 /10 for use as Shared Transition
Space. This prefix is intended to be non-routable. As IANA has
exhausted its pool of IPv4 address space, it may be necessary for one
or more RIRs and/or legacy address holders to provide such addresses
for IANA reservation (e.g. per ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5 [ARIN]).
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
7. Informative References
[ARIN] American Registry for Internet Numbers, "Shared Transition
Space for IPv4 Address Extension",
<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_5.html>.
[I-D.azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues]
Azinger, M. and L. Vegoda, "Issues Associated with
Designating Additional Private IPv4 Address Space",
draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-05
(work in progress), January 2011.
[I-D.bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space]
Barber, S., Delong, O., Grundemann, C., Kuarsingh, V., and
B. Schliesser, "ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared
Transition Space",
draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-00 (work in
progress), July 2011.
[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.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.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
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 January 9, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
Authors' Addresses
Jason Weil
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
USA
Email: jason.weil@twcable.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 January 9, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Shared Transition Space Request July 2011
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
Vancouver, WA
US
Phone: +1.360.513.2293
Fax:
Email: marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com
URI:
Weil, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 13]
