Internet Engineering Task Force S. Kumar, Ed. Internet-Draft 8 March 2023 Intended status: Informational Expires: 9 September 2023 InterPlanetary Internet Protocol (IPIP) draft-sanoj-ipip-00 Abstract With an exponential increase in the number of devices being connected to the internet, it is clear that the available address range of 2^128 in IPv6 Protocol would not be sufficient to identify and exchange information with all the devices in the universe. This document describes how Internet Protocol addressing standards can be further enhanced to accommodate a wider scale of network devices. 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 https://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 9 September 2023. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Kumar Expires 9 September 2023 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2023 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. IPIP Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Text Representation of IPIP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IPIP Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Address Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction While the current rate of IPv6 Address allocation gives us plenty of time to handle the exhaustion problem, the Internet's History has shown that the address spaces are filled up exponentially. Scientific advances in Quantum Technology and Inter-space Exploration further increase the need for a larger addressing method. Therefore, the Internet Protocol address space must be increased as soon as possible. The exact length of the addressing space is assumed to be 256 bits in this document and requires further expert discussion between IETF, IANA, and various gods for assessing the exact count of planets and the number of particles in the universe. However, at the time of this document's publication, the estimated amount of planets in the Milky Way Galaxy was approximately 10^55 planets. Assuming the approximate count of sand particles on Planet Earth (10^22) as an average baseline for the number of network devices on every planet, it is evident that Interplanetary adoption of Internet Protocol requires a larger address space of at least 10^77. 1.1. Requirements Language The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals. Kumar Expires 9 September 2023 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2023 2. IPIP Addressing IPIP addresses are 256-bit identifiers for network interfaces and various particles capable of connecting to the Internet. It is RECOMMENDED that more than one IPIP address SHOULD NOT be assigned for any network interface or particle in the universe. An exception MAY be applied for this constraint if, and only if, there is a clear requirement for assigning multiple IPIP addresses to sub-atomic particles or if IANA is required to provide more address space for a more sentient species from other planets. 3. Text Representation of IPIP Addresses There are two conventional forms for representing an IPIP address as text strings: (1) The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x, where the 'x's are one to four hexadecimal digits of the eight 16-bit pieces of the address. For Example: ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD :EF01:2345:6789 (2) An alternative form that is more convenient when dealing with multiple planets and species would be to compress zeros. The use of "::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros. The "::" can only appear once in an address. The "::" can also be used to compress leading or trailing zeros in an address. For Example, the following address ABCD:EF01:0000:0000:ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD :EF01:2345:6789 may be represented as ABCD:EF01::ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD:EF01:2345:6789:ABCD:EF01:234 5:6789 4. IPIP Routing There should be little to no impact on routing using 256-bit addresses considering the exponential processor and memory technology advancements. It is RECOMMENDED that network routes for planet- specific IPIP addresses are not broadcast to other planets outside of the origin planet to avoid network congestion in the Universal Internet. Any rogue network routes which don't follow this constraint are REQUIRED to have the Security Flag [RFC3514] set with a value of 0x1 to indicate malicious intent to other devices on the network. Kumar Expires 9 September 2023 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2023 5. Address Allocation The 256-bit addresses would be obsolete once more planets are discovered and hence it is RECOMMENDED that an IPIP address be allocated to a network interface/particle if, and only if, there is a clear requirement to communicate with other network interface/ particle. Allocation of an IPIP Addresses would be at the sole discretion of IANA based on a Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG). To ensure that IPIP address space is conserved, it is RECOMMENDED that IANA performs a Coin-Toss check to ensure address integrity before allocating any address to the requesting entity. IPIP Address space can be further conserved by using Quantum Entanglement where a single IPIP address can be shared between one or more particles. 6. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 7. Security Considerations This document should not affect the security of the Internet since all network devices using IPIP addresses is REQUIRED to be in conformance with [RFC3514] for added security. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC3514] Bellovin, S., "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header", RFC 3514, DOI 10.17487/RFC3514, April 2003, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 8.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Author's Address Sanoj Kumar (editor) Kumar Expires 9 September 2023 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2023 Phone: +917639661040 Email: hello@sanoj.io URI: https://sanoj.io/ Kumar Expires 9 September 2023 [Page 5]