Ripe Arin Apnic

50 %
50 %
Information about Ripe Arin Apnic

Published on January 3, 2008

Author: Crystal


IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocation:  IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocation Bob Hinden at RIPE Sept. 2000 Brian Carpenter at ARIN Oct. 2000 Alain Durand at APNIC Oct. 2000 OVERVIEW:  OVERVIEW Introduction Background Recommendation Address Space Conservation Multihoming Summary INTRODUCTION:  INTRODUCTION RIRs asked the IETF for comments on Provisional IPv6 Allocation Policy IPng working group discussed /48 issue in July 2000 IPv6 Directorate developed recommendation IAB & IESG Reviewed and Approved PREVIOUS DISCUSSION:  PREVIOUS DISCUSSION Discussion at Adelaide IETF Suggestion to allocate /56 prefixes instead of /48 for homes and small businesses Subsequent analysis shows significant advantage to uniform /48 allocations to all subscribers (homes, large and small enterprises) BACKGROUND:  BACKGROUND Address allocation is a balance Responsible allocation practices Easy access Allocation practices have significant effect on deployment and usage Important for the deployment of IPv6 to make allocations easy and not slow deployment IPv6 UNICAST ADDRESS:  FP TLA R NLA* SLA* INTERFACE ID 3 13 8 24 16 64 Public Topology Site Topology Interface Identifier IPv6 UNICAST ADDRESS INITIAL ALLOCATIONS:  INITIAL ALLOCATIONS Initial “slow start” allocations out of FP = 001 TLA = 0x0001 FP TLA Sub- R NLA SLA INTERFACE ID TLA 3 13 13 6 13 16 64 IPv6 RENUMBERING:  IPv6 RENUMBERING Renumbering in IPv6 is considerably improved (from IPv4) However Not invisible, painless, or automatic Renumbering still not free IPng W.G. RECOMMENDATION ON SITE PREFIX LENGTH:  IPng W.G. RECOMMENDATION ON SITE PREFIX LENGTH Specified in RFC2374 & RFC2450 Subnetted sites should be allocated /48 prefix Allows 216 subnets Large enough for almost all sites Issue is size of prefix for smaller sites /64 for single subnet sites? Single hosts? Mobile phone? Temporary vs. permanent usage? How to judge usage? IAB/IESG RECOMMENDATIONS:  IAB/IESG RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend /48 fixed boundary for all subscribers (homes, large and small enterprises) Except Very large subscribers (receive multiple /48 allocations, e.g., a /47 or /46…) Transient nodes No interest in multiple subnets (receive /64) Consistent with responsible stewardship of the IPv6 Address space JUSTIFICATION:  JUSTIFICATION Fixed boundary guarantees change of ISP does not require restructuring of subnets Facilitates straightforward renumbering Compatible w/ all known IPv6 Multihoming proposals Allows easy growth of subscriber networks Eliminates need to go back to ISP for more addresses JUSTIFICATION (2):  JUSTIFICATION (2) Removes burden on ISPs and RIRs to judge customers’ need for space ISPs do not need to ask for details of customer networks ISPs and RIRs do not have to judge rates of customer address consumption Makes RIR operations more efficient Subscriber address space no longer scarce resource Removes incentive for IPv6/IPv6 NAT JUSTIFICATION (3):  JUSTIFICATION (3) Allows site to maintain single reverse-DNS zone covering all prefixes Same subnetting structure allows same zone file for all prefixes Using RFC2874, reverse mapping data can be used in “forward” (name-keyed) zone FURTHER ADVANTAGES OF /48:  FURTHER ADVANTAGES OF /48 Keeps open the possibility of GSE-like (a.k.a. “8+8”) separation of locators and identifiers IRTF Name Space Research Group is looking at this general area Maintains 1 to 1 mapping of subnets with Site local prefix (fec0::/48) Maintains 1 to 1 mapping of subnets with 6to4 proposal CONVERVATION OF ADDRESS SPACE:  CONVERVATION OF ADDRESS SPACE Does giving a /48 to all subscribers waste too much IPv6 address space? No, the IPv6 address space is very large Aggregatable Unicast Address format supports 45 variable bits 245 or 35 Trillion ANALYSIS:  ANALYSIS RFC1715 defines an “H” ratio based on address space assignment in various networks A 45 bit address space at an “H” ratio of .25 would support 178 Billion site prefixes H = log10 (178 * 109) / 45 = 0.25 (Note: Projected world population in 2050 is ~10 Billion*) Comparable to the “H” ratio of US Telephone numbers, France Telephone numbers, DECnetIV, or IPv4 addresses mid 1990s * “H” ratio comparison :  “H” ratio comparison ANALYSIS (2):  ANALYSIS (2) We are only discussing assignments from Aggregatable Global Unicast Format Prefix (001) 85% of remaining address space is unassigned If in the future our analysis proves to be wrong Our successors have option of imposing more restrictive allocation policies MOBILE DEVICES:  MOBILE DEVICES Vehicles, Cell Phones, etc. Allocation Static /64 prefix (allows multiple devices) Temporary /128 (Mobile IP “care-of address”) DIAL UP:  DIAL UP Subscriber with single dialup node who prefers a transient address Autoconfig a /128 out of a /64 prefix Home or small enterprise subscriber who wants static assignment or plans a multiple node network Receive /48 even if dialup IPv6 MULTIHOMING:  IPv6 MULTIHOMING IPv6 multihoming is work in progress IPv4 multihoming techniques can be applied One prefix advertised by multiple ISPs Routing table grows with number of multihomed subscribers IPng working group looking at other approaches MULTIHOMING APPROACHES:  MULTIHOMING APPROACHES IPv4 Style How to scale backbone routing? Host Mechanisms Site receives a prefix from each ISP Prefixes carried by site routing Nodes select addresses to use How to pick best Source and Destination addresses? Border Router Mechanisms Tunneling Route injection MULTIHOMING FUTURES?:  MULTIHOMING FUTURES? Other approaches? Better ideas? SUMMARY:  SUMMARY Careful stewardship of IPv6 address space is important Allocation of /48 prefixes has many advantages Allocation of /48 prefixes to all subscribers is consistent with careful stewardship Size of IPv6 address space supports this approach Comments from the registries:  Comments from the registries RIPE Recommendation accepted Discussion about size of initial ISP allocation ( / 35 ) ARIN Question about “H” Ratio analysis These slides augmented to clarify APNIC Recommendation accepted

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre - Home | APNIC

APNIC is the Regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific
Read more

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Subscribe to ARIN's YouTube channel; Highlights. Request Resources; Waiting List for Unmet Requests; ... 2016, American Registry for Internet Numbers ...
Read more


2004/09/25 ARIN, APNIC, LAPNIC, RIPE. Internet registries. ARIN hands out addresses for North America, a portion of the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Afric ...
Read more


17 March 2002 IEPG - Minneapolis RIR Update A Joint Presentation Prepared By APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC
Read more

List of Country Codes and RIRs ordered by Country Code ...

List of Country Codes and RIRs ordered by Country Code. ... ARIN: JAPAN: JP: JPN: APNIC: JORDAN: JO: JOR: RIPE NCC: KAZAKHSTAN: KZ: KAZ: RIPE NCC: KENYA ...
Read more

RIPE Network Coordination Centre

The RIPE NCC is one of five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) providing Internet resource allocations, registration services and coordination activities ...
Read more

Whois - - Domain Names & Identity for ...

Whois Lookup for Whois. Domains ... RIPE NCC Registrant Street: ... SEC3.APNIC.NET Name Server: TINNIE.ARIN.NET Name Server: ...
Read more

World Whois Internet Registries - Summary on ARIN RIPE ...

WHOIS-queries get details of IP owners and related information from ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC, LANIC, RIPE, CNNIC, KISA/KRNIC and JPNIC servers. African Network ...
Read more

RIPE Network Coordination Centre – Wikipedia

Das Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) ist eine Regional Internet Registry ... AfriNIC | ARIN | APNIC | LACNIC | RIPE NCC ...
Read more

American Registry for Internet Numbers - Wikipedia, the ...

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Founded: April 18, 1997: ... Until this time, IP address registration (outside of RIPE and APNIC regions) ...
Read more