Network Working Group M. Azinger
Internet-Draft Frontier Communications
Intended status: Informational Corporation
Expires: July 8, 2011 L. Vegoda
ICANN
January 4, 2011
Issues Associated with Designating Additional Private IPv4 Address Space
draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-05
Abstract
When a private network or internetwork grows very large it is
sometimes not possible to address all interfaces using private IPv4
address space because there are not enough addresses. This document
describes the problems faced by those networks, the available options
and the issues involved in assigning a new block of private IPv4
address space.
While this informational document does not make a recommendation for
action, it documents the issues surrounding the various options that
have been considered.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
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
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Large Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Non-Unique Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Subscriber Use Network Address Translation . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Carrier Grade Network Address Translation . . . . . . . . 4
4. Available Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. IPv6 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Unique Globally Scoped IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . 4
4.1.2. Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. IPv4 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Address Transfers or Leases From Organizations
with Available Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Using Unannounced Address Space Allocated to
Another Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.3. Unique IPv4 Space Registered by an RIR . . . . . . . . 6
5. Options and Consequences for Defining New Private Use Space . 6
5.1. Redefining Existing Unicast Space as Private Address
Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Unique IPv4 Space Shared by a Group of Operators . . . . . 7
5.3. Potential Consequences of Not Redefining Existing
Unicast Space as Private Address Space . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Redefining Future Use Space as Unicast Address Space . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
1. Introduction
[RFC1918] sets aside three blocks of IPv4 address space for use in
private networks: 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12 and 10.0.0.0/8.
These blocks can be used simultaneously in multiple, separately
managed networks without registration or coordination with IANA or
any Internet registry. Very large networks can find that they need
to number more device interfaces than there are available addresses
in these three ranges. It has occasionally been suggested that
additional private IPv4 address space should be reserved for use by
these networks. Although such an action might address some of the
needs for these very large network operators it is not without
consequences, particularly as we near the date when the IANA free
pool will be fully allocated.
2. Large Networks
The main categories of very large networks using private address
space are: cable operators, wireless (cell phone) operators, private
internets and VPN service providers. In the case of the first two
categories, the complete address space reserved in [RFC1918] tends to
be used by a single organization. In the case of private internets
and VPN service providers there are multiple independently managed
and operated networks and the difficulty is in avoiding address
clashes.
3. Non-Unique Addresses
3.1. Subscriber Use Network Address Translation
The address space set aside in [RFC1918] is a finite resource which
can be used to provide limited Internet access via Network Address
Translation (NAT). A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages
of NATs is outside the scope of this document but a an analysis of
the advantages, disadvantages and architectural implications can be
found in [RFC2993]. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that NAT is
adequate in some situations and not in others. For instance, it
might technically feasible to use NAT or even multiple layers of NAT
within the networks operated by residential users or corporations
where only limited Internet access is required. A more detailed
analysis can be found in [RFC3022]. Where true peer to peer
communication is needed or where services or applications do not work
properly behind NAT, globally unique address space is required. In
other cases, NAT traversal techniques facilitate peer-to-peer like
communication for devices behind NATs.
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
In many cases it is possible to use multiple layers of NAT to re-use
parts of the address space defined in [RFC1918]. It is not always
possible to rely on CPE devices using any particular range, however.
In some cases this means that unorthodox workarounds including
assigning CPE devices unallocated address space or address space
allocated to other network operators are feasible. In other cases,
organizations choose to operate multiple separate routing domains to
allow them to re-use the same private address ranges in multiple
contexts. One consequence of this is the added complexity involved
in identifying which system is referred to when an IP address is
identified in a log or management systems.
3.2. Carrier Grade Network Address Translation
Another option is to share one address across multiple interfaces and
in some cases, subscribers. This model breaks the classical model
used for logging address assignments and creates significant risks
and additional burdens, as described in [CLAYTON] and more fully
discussed in [FORD] and is documented in [DS-LITE].
4. Available Options
When a network operator has exhausted the private address space set
aside in [RFC1918] but needs to continue operating a single routing
domain a number of options are available. These include:
4.1. IPv6 Options
4.1.1. Unique Globally Scoped IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Using unique, globally scoped IPv6 unicast addresses is the best
permanent solution as it removes any concerns about address scarcity
within the next few decades. Implementing IPv6 is a major endeavor
for service providers with millions of consumer customers and is
likely to take considerable effort and time. In some cases
implementing a new network protocol on a very large network takes
more time than is available, based on network growth and the
proportion of private space that has already been used. In these
cases, there is a call for additional private address space that can
be shared by all network operators. [DAVIES] makes one such case.
4.1.2. Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Using the unique, local IPv6 unicast addresses defined in [RFC4193]
is another approach and does not require coordination with an
Internet registry. Although the addresses defined in [RFC4193] are
probabilistically unique, network operators on private internets and
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
those providing VPN services might not want to use them because there
is a very low probability of non-unique locally assigned global IDs
being generated by the algorithm. Also, in the case of private
internets, it can be very challenging to coordinate the introduction
of a new network protocol to support the internet's continued growth.
4.2. IPv4 Options
4.2.1. Address Transfers or Leases From Organizations with Available
Address Space
The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities have recently been
developing policies to allow organizations with available address
space to transfer such designated space to other organizations
[RIR-POLICY]. In other cases, leases might be arranged. This
approach is only viable for operators of very large networks if
enough address space is made available for transfer or lease and if
the very large networks are able to pay the costs of these transfers.
It is not possible to know how much address space will become
available in this way, when it will be available and how much it will
cost. However, it is unlikely to become available in large
contiguous blocks and this would add to the network management burden
for the operator as a significant number of small prefixes would
inflate the size of the operators routing table at a time when it is
also adding an IPv6 routing table. These reasons will make address
transfers a less attractive proposition to many large network
operators. Leases might not be attractive to some organizations if
both parties cannot agree a suitable length of time. Also, the
lessor might worry about its own unanticipated needs for additional
IPv4 address space.
4.2.2. Using Unannounced Address Space Allocated to Another
Organization
Some network operators have considered using IP address space which
is allocated to another organization but is not publicly visible in
BGP routing tables. This option is very strongly discouraged as the
fact that an address block is not visible from one view does not mean
that it is not visible from another. Furthermore, address usage
tends to leak beyond private network borders in e-mail headers, DNS
queries, traceroute output and other ways. The ambiguity this causes
is problematic for multiple organizations. This issue is discussed
in [RFC3879], section 2.3.
It is also possible that the registrant of the address block might
want to increase its visibility to other networks in the future,
causing problems for anyone using it unofficially. In some cases
there might also be legal risks involved in using address space
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
officially allocated to another organization.
Where this has happened in the past it has caused operational
problems [FASTWEB].
4.2.3. Unique IPv4 Space Registered by an RIR
RIRs policies allow network operators to receive unique IP addresses
for use on internal networks. Further, network operators are not
required to have already exhausted the private address space set
aside in [RFC1918]. Nonetheless, network operators are naturally
disinclined to request unique IPv4 addresses for the private areas of
their networks as using addresses in this way means they are not
available for use by new Internet user connections.
It is likely to become more difficult for network operators to obtain
large blocks of unique address space as we approach the point where
all IPv4 unicast /8s have been allocated. Several RIRs already have
policies how to allocate from their last /8 [RIR-POLICY-FINAL-8] and
there have been policy discussions that would reduce the maximum
allocation size available to network operators [MAX-ALLOC] or would
reduce the period of need for which the RIR can allocate
[SHORTER-PERIODS].
5. Options and Consequences for Defining New Private Use Space
5.1. Redefining Existing Unicast Space as Private Address Space
It is possible to re-designate a portion of the current global
unicast IPv4 address space as private unicast address space. Doing
this could benefit a number of operators of large network for the
short period before they complete their IPv6 roll-out. However, this
benefit incurs a cost by reducing the pool of global unicast
addresses available to users in general.
When discussing re-designating a portion of the current global
unicast IPv4 address space as private unicast address space it is
important to consider how much space would be used and for how long
it would be sufficient. Not all of the large networks making full
use of the space defined in [RFC1918] would have their needs met with
a single /8. In 2005, [HAIN] suggested reserving three /8s for this
purpose while in 2009 [DAVIES] suggested a single /10 would be
sufficient. There does not seem to be a consensus for a particular
prefix length nor an agreed basis for deciding what is sufficient.
The problem is exacerbated by the continually changing needs of ever
expanding networks.
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
A further consideration is which of the currently unallocated IPv4
unicast /8 blocks should be used for this purpose. Using address
space which is known to be used unofficially is tempting. For
instance, 1.0.0.0/8, which was unallocated until January 2010, was
proposed in [HAIN] and is known to be used by a number of different
users. These include networks making use of HIP LSIs [RFC4423],
[WIANA], [anoNet] and others. There is anecdotal [VEGODA] and
research [WESSELS] evidence to suggest that several other IPv4 /8s
are used in this fashion. Also there have been discussions [NANOG]
about some sections of these /8's being carved out and filtered
therefore unofficially enabling the use of these sections for private
use.
Although new IPv4 /8s are allocated approximately once a month, they
are not easy to bring into use because network operators are slow to
change their filter configurations. This is despite long-running
awareness campaigns [CYMRU], [LEWIS] and active work [ripe-351] to
notify people whose filters are not changed in a timely fashion.
Updating code that recognises private address space in deployed
software and infrastructure systems is likely to be far more
difficult as many systems have these ranges hard-coded and cannot be
quickly changed with a new configuration file.
Another consideration when redefining existing unicast space as
private address space is that no single class of user can expect the
space to stay unique to them. This means that an ISP using a new
private address range cannot expect its customers not to already be
using that address range within their own networks.
5.2. Unique IPv4 Space Shared by a Group of Operators
Where a group of networks find themselves in a position where they
each need a large amount of IPv4 address space from an RIR in
addition to that defined in [RFC1918] they might cooperatively agree
to all use the same address space to number their networks. The
clear benefit to this approach is that it significantly reduces the
potential demand on the pool of unallocated IPv4 address space.
However, the issues discussed in 4.4 could also be of concern here,
particularly the possibility that one operator might decide to use
the address space to number customer connections, rather than private
infrastructure.
Nonetheless, this approach has the potential to create an unofficial
new private address range without proper scrutiny.
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
5.3. Potential Consequences of Not Redefining Existing Unicast Space as
Private Address Space
If additional private address space is not defined and the large
network operators affected by this problem are not able to solve
their problems with IPv6 address space or by segmenting their
networks into multiple routing domains, those networks will need
unique IPv4 addresses. It is possible and even likely that a single
network could consume a whole IPv4 /8 in a year. At the time of
writing there are just 24 unallocated IPv4 /8s, so it would not take
many such requests to make a major dent in the available IPv4 address
space. [POTAROO] provides an analysis of IPv4 address consumption
and projects the date on which the IANA and RIR pools will be fully
allocated.
5.4. Redefining Future Use Space as Unicast Address Space
There have also been proposals to re-designate the former Class E
space (240.0.0.0/4) as unicast address space. [WILSON] suggests that
it should be privately scoped while [FULLER] does not propose a
scope. Both proposals note that existing deployed equipment may not
be able to use addresses from 240.0.0.0/4. Potential users would
need to be sure of the status of the equipment on their network and
the networks with which they intend to communicate.
It is not immediately clear how useful 240.0.0.0/4 could be in
practice. While [FULLER] documents the status of several popular
desktop and server operating systems, the status of the most widely
deployed routers and switches is less clear and it is possible that
240.0.0.0/4 might only be useful in very large, new green field
deployments where full control of all deployed systems is available.
However, in such cases it might well be easier to deploy an IPv6
network.
6. Security Considerations
This document has no security implications.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
8. References
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2993] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
November 2000.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
January 2001.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3879] Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.
[RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[anoNet] anoNet, "anoNet: Cooperative Chaos",
.
[CLAYTON] Clayton, R., "Practical mobile Internet access
traceability", January 2010, .
[CYMRU] Greene, B., "The Bogon Reference",
.
[DAVIES] Davies, G. and C. Liljenstolpe, "Work in Progress:
Transitional non-conflicting reusable IPv4 address block",
November 2009, .
[DS-LITE] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Work in
Progress: Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following
IPv4 Exhaustion", August 2010, .
[FASTWEB] Aina, A., "41/8 announcement", May 2006,
.
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
[FORD] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Work in Progress: Issues with IP Address
Sharing", March 2010, .
[FULLER] Fuller, V., Lear, E., and D. Meyer, "Work in Progress:
Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address space",
March 2008,
.
[HAIN] Hain, T., "Work in Progress: Expanded Address Allocation
for Private Internets", January 2005,
.
[LEWIS] Lewis, J., "This system has been setup for testing
purposes for 69/8 address space", March 2003,
.
[MAX-ALLOC]
Spenceley, J. and J. Martin, "prop-070: Maximum IPv4
allocation size", January 2009,
.
[NANOG] Dickson, B., "1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC",
January 2010, .
[POTAROO] Huston, G., "IPv4 Address Report",
.
[ripe-351]
Karrenberg, D., "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks",
October 2005,
.
[RIR-POLICY]
Number Resource Organization, "RIR Comparative Policy
Overview, October 2009, Section 1.3.2 Transfer of
Custodianship",
.
[RIR-POLICY-FINAL-8]
Number Resource Organization, "RIR Comparative Policy
Overview, October 2009, 2.6. Use of Final Unallocated IPv4
Address Space", October 2009,
.
[SHORTER-PERIODS]
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
Karrenberg, D., O'Reilly, N., Titley, N., and R. Bush,
"RIPE Policy Proposal 2009-03", April 2009,
.
[VEGODA] Vegoda, L., "Awkward /8 Assignments", September 2007, .
[WESSELS] Wessels, D., "Searching for Evidence of Unallocated
Address Space Usage in DITL 2008 Data", June 2008, .
[WIANA] WIANA, "The Wireless Internet Assigned Numbers Authority",
.
[WILSON] Wilson, P., Michaelson, G., and G. Huston, "Work in
Progress: Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to
"Private Use"",
.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would also like to thank Ron Bonica, Michelle Cotton, Lee
Howard and Barbara Roseman for their assistance in early discussions
of this document and to Maria Blackmore, Alex Bligh, Mat Ford, Thomas
Narten, Ricardo Patara and for improvement suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications Corporation
Vancouver, WA
United States of America
Email: marla.azinger@ftr.com
URI: http://www.frontiercorp.com/
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Additional Private IPv4 January 2011
Leo Vegoda
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
United States of America
Phone: +1-310-823-9358
Email: leo.vegoda@icann.org
URI: http://www.iana.org/
Azinger & Vegoda Expires July 8, 2011 [Page 12]