Subject: [rrg] New draft, the hierachial IPv4 framework

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:16:59 +0200

There is a new draft published trying to address the routing
architecture of Internet
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-frejborg-hipv4-00.txt

   This draft describes a framework how the current IPv4 address
   structure can be extended towards a similar hierarchical numbering
   structure as used in the Public Switched Telephone Network and bring
   hierarchy to the routing architecture of Internet. The framework
   requires extensions to the existing Domain Name System architecture,
   the existing IPv4 stack of the end systems (hosts) and to routers in
   the Internet. The framework can be implemented incrementally to the
   hosts, databases and routers.

The idea is quite simple, it will require changes to all disciplines
but from the networking point of view it will not require changes to
the current forwarding plane except that a new networking element
(LISP Switch Router) is needed at each Autonomous System or at several
AS controlled by an ISP. This framework will bring hierarchy to both
the IPv4 addressing structure and to the routing architecture of
Internet.

I do have a presentation available, but lacking a FTP server resource

-- patte

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:47:23 +1100

Hi Patrick,

While I haven't been able to understand exactly how your proposal

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4-00

would work, I think it could not be considered as the best approach
to the scalable routing problem for the following reasons:

1 - It involves extensive changes to host stacks, APIs and
    applications.

    In order to be effective, such as enabling a billion or
    whatever large number of multihomable end-user networks,
    without causing scaling problems, the solution needs to be
    very broadly accepted by most end-user networks of all types and
    sizes.  They will only do this if there is immediate benefit to
    them (in months) and very little in the way of risks and costs.

    A primary functional benefit of the Internet is 100% reachability
    of all hosts.  Any proposal such as yours which involves a new
    addressing system relying on host changes, means that all hosts
    adopting the new addressing system will be unreachable by those
    which have not upgraded their stack, API and applications.

    Therefore, your new addressing scheme would only be useful to
    most users once everyone has adopted it.  In the meantime, there
    are only costs (actually, impossibility of having all
    applications rewritten, even if you got the stacks rewritten)
    and few benefits for anyone who adopts it - so it would never in
    fact be adopted widely.

2 - Likewise, for routers and ISPs.

3 - Your proposal doesn't help with IPv6.  This would be widely
    regarded as a show-stopper, on the assumption that IPv6 is
    going to be the future Internet, replacing the IPv4 Internet.

    I am not convinced this is going to happen at all, or any time
    soon, but for most people in this field, any scalable routing and
    addressing solution must also have a solution for IPv6.  I am
    working on solutions for both IPv4 and IPv6.  I think IPv6
    is likely to achieve significant adoption, at least for cellphone
    systems, in the next decade.

The architectures used by the core-edge separation schemes LISP, APT,
Ivip and TRRP could all work for both IPv4 and IPv6, without
requiring host changes, while supporting packets from non-upgraded
networks, without creating any new address spaces.  They convert
parts of the existing IP address space into a special kind, which I
call "Scalable PI" space, which is highly suitable for end-user
networks needing multihoming, inbound TE and portability between ISPs.

I have had some thoughts about creating a new (third . . . ) Internet
using a 64 bit address space built by extending IPv4 IP addresses
into a gateway for another 2^32 addresses in the new system.
However, I think there are probably as many problems changing the
world over to such a new network as there are changing the world over
to IPv6.

> I do have a presentation available, but lacking a FTP server resource

I can provide a stable home for it and any other material you have
under some directory such as http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/xxx/ .

  - Robin