IP Addressing

Document Sample
IP Addressing Powered By Docstoc
					Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 21:59:15 pst
From: wally%net1.ucsd.edu@flash.bellcore.com (Wally Linstruth) (tty00)

        To: tcpgroup
        Regarding: IP addressing


             The intent of this paper is to document the background
        behind the current IP address assignments which I have offered to
        coordinate.   The proposed scheme has been reviewed by Phil Karn,
        Bdale Garbee and (verbally with) Mike Chepponis, all of whom have
        encouraged that it be used.

             Phil's code does NOT currently support the subnetwork
        aspects of the scheme but will do so in the future. There is no
        real reason for any national coordination of these addresses
        until actual networks or at least geographically coordinated
        groups of experimenters are formed.

             I have offered to issue and keep track of SUBNET   addresses
        and their "owners" who are presumably responsible       *NETWORK*
        implementors and managers.

             The basic premise behind the proposed plan is that amateur
        radio networks will be politically defined.    The plan is based
        upon the presumption that current voice networks serve as a
        proper analog by which to predict general characteristics of the
        as yet unconstructed digital networks.   Political entities will
        build networks; funded, controlled, maintained and used primarily
        by their own members and guests.

             Each of these separately managed networks should be viewed
        as a subnetwork of AMPRNET (with the idea being to somehow
        rationally partition the 044.xxx.xxx.xxx AMPRNET address space).
        Each subnetwork within AMPRNET will maintain routing tables for
        its own constituents.     Each will provide its own hosts (TACs,
        Gateways, i.e. the mechanism by which users with simple terminals
        and AX25 level 2 boxes will access network resources), switches,
        rules (network administration), security measures and quite
        possibly its own link level protocols.

             The natural limitations on span of control will probably
        limit the service area of each of these networks.        This is
        another factor leading to the partitioning of the AMPRNET address
        space with respect to separate subnetworks.

             This partitioning of the address space will allow for
        much simplified routing tables in each host.      Internetworking
        gateways will connect these independently controlled subnetworks.
        Each gateway will maintain routing tables only for local hosts
        and for gateways to other networks. Hosts and relay switches on
        a   given subnet will need to maintain routing information
        regarding only members of that subnet and gateways to other
        networks.   The required routing tables should prove to be very
manageable and make any kind of geographically based hueristic
addressing schemes such as ZIP codes, area codes etc. moot.




                              1
     I would also like to propose that we coordinate logical
network names and their corresponding addresses based on these
political   network subdivisions.     The concept of a naming
convention which maps directly into an IP address is purely for
the convenience of network developers and is not considered
necessary. There is, however, some good reasoning behind making
network and host names hierarchical and meaningful to end users.
It will considerably aid in bootstrapping the initial networks
and in being comprehensible to the non-network folks who will be
the primary users of these networks.      The naming convention
proposed   is of the     form   USERID@HOST.SUBNET[.AMPRNET.RES].
WESTNET, SBARCnet (Santa Barbara ARC) and GFRN-net represent
three hypothetical networks with which this writer could be
involved, perhaps as a provider of gateway and/or host services.

     Each of these subnetwork entities could have a distinct
address and perhaps several internally administered host/user
addresses.

    [NOTE: Throughout this paper, Host or Host/User represents
    any host or any user running IP protocols that has direct
    network access. Also, for the purposes of the following
    example,   WA6JPR is not a network address, rather it
    represents a user-id on a local host.    It is the writer's
    opinion that the majority of packet users for the forseeable
    future will be using simple TNCs connected to hosts via
    AX.25 level 2 protocols.]

     WA6JPR may be "a user" on hosts on more than one network
such that a station in Washington D.C.,logged onto an AMPRNET
host,    may    send    internet    traffic    successfully    to
WA6JPR@JPRHOST.WESTNET (this traffic would be routed to Westnet
via various AMPRNET gateways and subnetwork level relays and then
to a Santa Barbara host known internally by Westnet to be
reachable via the W6AMT-2 switch).       Traffic could also be
directed to Wally@SBARC     (presuming that the Santa Barbara
Amateur Radio Club maintains a message server host gatewayed to
the AMPRNET catenet).

     Based upon the presumption of the       AMPRNET/SUBNET/HOST
hierarchy, it would seem that we could easily decide how to
allocate the 044.xxx.xxx.xxx 24 bit IP address field such that
there are bits allocated for a sufficient number of individually
managed subnetworks while leaving a correspondingly adequate
number of assignable bits for the internal addressing needs of
each individual subnetwork.

     Accordingly,   the following is proposed as an initial
addressing scheme and methodology for address assignment. [Bit
numbering is per RFC-960 Pg.2]
2
Bit 8 to be 0 for USA stations and 1 for non-USA stations.
[Note.   This is not meant to imply a geographic basis for
assignments.   It is meant to provide a very quick means for
segregating FCC controlled participants from non-FCC stations.]

Bits 9 - 18 to represent politically separate subnetworks within
AMPRNET.   These bits are to be assigned in an inverse binary
sequence   (see   example  below) beginning with     the   *MOST
SIGNIFICANT* bit first.

Bits 19 - 23 to be unassigned and reserved for future allocation
as network addresses, to network administrations for internally
assigned host and/or user addresses, to a combination of the
above or to a completely new intermediate class of addresses.

Bits 24 - 31 to be used within politically separate AMPRNET
subnetworks for individual hosts, switches, workstations etc. as
determined by local network administration.        It would   be
recommended that these bits be assigned in binary sequence with
the *LEAST SIGNIFICANT* bits being assigned first.

    The   resulting   network   addresses would be as follows:

AMPRNET
||
|| SUBNET----+
|| |         |
|| |         | HOST--+
|| |         | |     |
44:0...127:000:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:001:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:031:0...255--+
44:0...127:032:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:033:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:063:0...255--+
44:0...127:064:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:065:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:095:0...255--+
44:0...127:096:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:097:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:127:0...255--+
44:0...127:128:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:129:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:159:0...255--+
44:0...127:160:0...255------- 32,768   addresses assignable
44:0...127:161:0...255--+
            |           +- 1,015,808   addresses reserved
44:0...127:191:0...255--+
44:0...127:192:0...255------- 32,768 addresses assignable



                                3
       44:0...127:193:0...255--+
                   |           +- 1,015,808 addresses reserved
       44:0...127:223:0...255--+
       44:0...127:224:0...255------- 32,768 addresses assignable
       44:0...127:225:0...255--+
                   |           +- 1,015,808 addresses reserved
       44:0...127:255:0...255--+

       44:128:xxx:xxx----------+
           |                   +- 8,388,608 addresses assignable (non
USA)
       44:255:xxx:xxx----------+


            The above allocation and assignment scheme allows network
       (subnet) and intranet (host/user) addresses to begin to be
       immediately assigned to experimenters while retaining the largest
       possible contiguous block of unassigned bits whose assignments
       can be defined in the future with little or no impact on
       previously   allocated   addresses.    The USER @ HOSTNAME      .
       SUBNET/ADMINISTRATION naming scheme represents a human-friendly
       network naming convention which maps easily into numerical
       network addresses.    I believe that the above approach is in
       general conformance with the requirements of RFC-950, "Internet
       Standard Subnetting Procedure."

            The numbering scheme as initially proposed allows for up to
       1024 AMPRNET subnetworks of up to 256 hosts in the USA while
       retaining five bits for future expansion.         That's 262,144
       individual AMPRNET addressable entities.   If the proposed method
       of address assignment is followed and we run out of Host/User
       addresses before we run out of network addresses, we can simply
       pick up the least significant reserved bit and assign more
       Host/User addresses.   Conversely, if network addresses are more
       popular we could easily expand by taking the most significant
       reserved bit and allocating it for network addressing.

       If it should become clear that every user on a network needs his
       or her own IP address, each network could allocate user blocks in
       256 user increments from the least significant reserved bits.
       Possible combinations are 1024 networks each with up to 8192
       individually addressable units or 2048 networks each with 4096
       hosts/users (8,388,608 individually addressable entities).

            The writer presumes that 8 million plus addresses ought to
       last the US amateur population for some time to come. All we need
       to do to avoid painting ourselves in a corner is to assign them
       in a logical sequence rather than randomly.
4
     The following table serves as an example of the "high     bit
first" network address assignment table and some actual        and
requested initial networking assignments.

    "this"         44.000.000.xxx     ;special   case
    KARNnet        44.064.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   KA9Q
    BDALEnet       44.032.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   N3EUA
    DCnet1         44.096.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   WB6RQN
    SOCALnet1      44.016.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   WB5EKU
    DCnet2         44.080.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   WB6RQN
    SOCALnet2      44.048.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   WA6JPR
    PITTNET        44.112.000.xxx     ;network   admin:   N3CVL
    next           44.008.000.xxx
    next           44.072.000.xxx
                       .
                       .
                       .
    last           44.063.000.xxx
    "all"          44.127.000.xxx     ;special case
5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:8/27/2012
language:English
pages:10
tayyab tariq tayyab tariq free software,games and many more. http://www.bestsoft32.com
About iam perfect person and no one can challege me.