Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/cidrd/cidrd-minutes-95jul.txt

Text File | 1995-10-18 | 9.1 KB | 217 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Guy Almes/Advanced Network and Services

Minutes of the CIDR Deployment Working Group (CIDRD)


Tony Li's Report on IP Address Space Usage and Lifetime

Tony summarised the IPv4 address space and how the InterNIC allocates
large CIDR blocks.  Further, he noted how the InterNIC maintains the
statistics on allocated and assigned address space used in this report.

Given this background, Tony issued the disclaimer that he could not
estimate possible non-linear effects due to future developments.  He
then proceeded to discuss his estimates of future Address Space Usage
and the Lifetime of the IPv4 Address Space.

At the San Jose IETF (December 1994), Tony had estimated a lifetime of
the year 2008 +/- three years.  By the Danvers IETF (April 1995), the
growth slope appeared to drop.  The new projected lifetime is the year
2018 +/- eight years.  The statistical extrapolation technique is Tony's
visible eye-balling.

Tony then presented the implications for the development and deployment
of IPv6.  From his IPv4 projections, the worst-case date by which a
deployed IPv6 is needed is the year 2010.  From his assumptions about
IPv6 development and deployment, the latest that an intense
development-and-deployment effort could begin would be seven years total
(the critical path is two years for host development plus five years for
host deployment).  Thus, this intense IPv6 effort would need to begin in
the year 2003.

Tony's slides are included at the end of this report.


Frank Solensky's Report on IP Address Space Usage and Lifetime

Frank presented his slides on projections similar to Tony's.  However,
his techniques for statistical extrapolation was more sophisticated.

One slide showed the growth in 128/2 (i.e., Class B) allocations.  The
estimate here projected that, under current allocation policies, the
128/2 space would not run out.

A second slide showed the growth in 192/3 (i.e., Class C) allocations.
There were two distinct allocations here (labeled raw and smoothed).
The raw estimate showed 192/3 not running out, but the smoothed estimate
showed 192/3 running out by the end of the decade.

Frank's slides are included at the end of this report.



Erik-Jan Bos's Report on Routing Table Growth

Erik-Jan reported on the growth in the number of prefixes present in
routers.  The number of total nets continues to grow, and at a higher
rate than we would like.  Similarly the number of AS numbers continues
to grow.

The number of CIDR routes continues its strong upward growth, as has the
number of AS numbers doing CIDR. 56% of the AS numbers now advertise at
least one CIDR prefix.

Erik-Jan has been maintaining a database, with entries for each hour
since January 1994, of the number of BGP entries in
Amsterdam1.dante.net.  This plot shows an uncomfortably high slope since
Danvers (April 1995).  The proliferation of IP providers, for example,
leads to the creation of holes in SURFnet's CIDR blocks.  Tony Bates
stressed that we need to continue to put pressure on the `top 20'
providers who need to improve their use of CIDR.

Erik-Jan's slides are included at the end of this report.


Daniel Karrenberg's Report on Routing Table Growth

Daniel reported on the number of prefixes for each 8-bit prefix.  His
table includes the number of host addresses possible (given its CIDR
breakup), the number of actual current routes, and the number of hosts
per route.  Daniel has done this once per month for the last two months.
The value of this report will grow as he continues to produce these
reports each month in the future.


Bill Manning's Report on Class A Space Utilisation and Class A
CIDRisation

Bill reported on the state of allocation of the traditional Class A
space and lower (i.e., not reserved) 0/1 space.  The IANA is negotiating
to recover some of the pre-CIDR allocated 0/1.  About 3% of the total
IPv4 space has been recovered in the last few months.  They are
continuing to review nets not visible in the global routing system, and
hope to recover an additional two to four additional 0/1 prefixes.

Bill's slides are included at the end of this report.


Classless in-addr.arpa Delegation -- Geert Jan de Groot

Geert Jan addressed the problem of maintaining the in-addr.arpa entries
of the DNS when different CIDR blocks of a single class-full network
number are assigned to different organizations.

After briefly discussing two non-solutions, he presented an admittedly
ugly solution that works with current software.  Specifically, use CNAME
RRs to alias/move authority to another zone.

This has actually been on the net for a while and seems to work well.
Havard Eidnes and Geert Jan have written an Internet-Draft on this
technique.  This technique is also being discussed within the DNSIND
Working Group.

Geert Jan's slides are included at the end of this report.



Address Allocation for Private Internets -- Yakov Rekhter

Yakov noted that private internets are proliferating, and that the use
of global IP addresses for these private internets depletes the address
pool.  To avoid this, we need to provide an alternative addressing plan.

To further this, Yakov has drafted a successor to RFC 1597 that:


   o Discusses those cases when non-global addresses can be used,
   o Specifies three specific blocks that can be used for this,
   o Notes implications for the global Internet routing system, and
   o Apologises for the likely need for private internets to renumber.


During discussion, it was noted that DNS records sometimes expose an
otherwise private IP address.  In some cases, this will require two
overlapping sets of DNS definitions for a company's IP domain.

As a postscript, Yakov noted the need for administrators to renumber and
for tool-builders to help automate renumbering.  The key argument is
that, for a site's IP addresses to be useful, it does not suffice for
them to be globally unique.  Many sites are likely to have to renumber
lest, for example, their old globally unique prefix be taken back by
IANA (to recover a valuable and underused Class A, for example) or their
old globally unique prefix be dropped from the routing tables of
providers (to recover routing table memory space, for example).  During
discussion, the point was made that renumbering should be applicable
across the entire range, including providers and very prestigious large
sites.  What is needed is routable addresses -- not merely unique
addresses.

In a discussion of operational considerations, it was brought up that if
a firewall tries to support proxy Web service, and if the Web browser
tries to use Web authentication, then this fails.  It was judged that
this is a HTTP protocol problem.

It was also brought up that Tony Bates has already written an
Internet-Draft that calls for a reserved set of AS numbers that can be
used for private Internets.

In discussion, Eliot Lear warned that RFC 1597bis needs to be done with
care, to avoid negatively impacting users.

Yakov's slides are included at the end of this report.


Standards-Track Actions

   o Best Current Practices

     Scott Bradner reported that Dave Crocker believes that the current
     standards process supports what Best Current Practices were
     intended to achieve.  Dave thus objects to the notion of Best
     Current Practices.  About a dozen CIDRD members had read the
     proposal for Best Current Practices, and none found it
     objectionable.  The Operational Requirements Area would like to do
     things such as RFC 1597bis without running it through the standards
     track.  Scott advised that, if members feel that the Best Current
     Practices is useful and important, then they should so advise the
     IESG.

   o The Address Ownership Internet-Draft

     Yakov and Tony Li have written an Internet-Draft on address
     ownership, taking the position that a notion of address ownership
     has and will cause the Internet to be unroutable.  It is likely
     that a working group last call on this Internet-Draft will come
     soon.

   o An Appeal to Return Address Space Internet-Draft

     Phil Nesser has written a Internet-Draft urging people to return
     unneeded address space, but he was not present at the meeting.
     Bill Manning has agreed to help with any editorial rewrite.  Tony
     needs to ping Phil on the status of this document.

   o Net 39 Experience

     Geoff Huston's document should be edited for shorter sentences, but
     then sent ahead as an Informational or Best Current Practice RFC.
     Barry Greene volunteered to help edit it.

   o Help in IP Space Renumbering

     There has been a request for someone to write a document on what is
     involved in renumbering an IP network.  This is important in order
     for people to sanely agree to ever renumber their networks.  Geert
     Jan volunteered to write a draft.  Sean Doran's experience is that
     most customers are happy to renumber when the importance of doing
     so it pointed out to them.
     There was discussion of the proliferation of IP addresses due to
     the common practice of multiple Web server domain names, supported
     by single server machines, requiring multiple IP addresses due to
     mis-features of the HTTP protocol.  Scott Bradner reported that the
     HTTP Working Group is working on this problem.