Addressing: IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Addressing: IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 650512-ZTg5Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Addressing: IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond

Description:

Addressing: IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond CS 4251: Computer Networking II Nick Feamster Spring 2008 ... Encrypted IP payload encapsulated within an additional, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: NickF152
Learn more at: http://gtnoise.net
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Addressing: IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond


1
Addressing IPv4, IPv6, and Beyond
  • CS 4251 Computer Networking II Nick
    Feamster Spring 2008

2
IPv4 Addresses Networks of Networks
Topological Addressing
  • 32-bit number in dotted-quad notation
  • www.cc.gatech.edu --- 130.207.7.36

130
207
7
36
Network (16 bits)
Host (16 bits)
  • Problem 232 addresses is a lot of table entries
  • Solution Routing based on network and host
  • 130.207.0.0/16 is a 16-bit prefix with 216 IP
    addresses

3
Pre-1994 Classful Addressing
32
8
16
24
Class A
Network ID
Host ID
0
/8 blocks (e.g., MIT has 18.0.0.0/8)
Class B
10
/16 blocks (e.g., Georgia Tech has 130.207.0.0/16)
Class C
110
/24 blocks (e.g., ATT Labs has 192.20.225.0/24)
Class D
Multicast Addresses
1110
Class E
Reserved for experiments
1111
Simple Forwarding Address range specifies
network ID length
4
Problem Routing Table Growth
Source Geoff Huston
  • Growth rates exceeding advances in hardware and
    software capabilities
  • Primarily due to Class C space exhaustion
  • Exhaustion of routing table space was on the
    horizon

5
Routing Table Growth Who Cares?
  • On pace to run out of allocations entirely
  • Memory
  • Routing tables
  • Forwarding tables
  • Churn More prefixes, more updates

6
Possible Solutions
  • Get rid of global addresses
  • NAT
  • Get more addresses
  • IPv6
  • Different aggregation strategy
  • Classless Interdomain routing

7
Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR)
Use two 32-bit numbers to represent a network.
Network number IP address Mask
Example BellSouth Prefix 65.14.248.0/22
IP Address 65.14.248.0 Mask 255.255.252.0
Address no longer specifies network ID range. New
forwarding trick Longest Prefix Match
8
Benefits of CIDR
  • Efficiency Can allocate blocks of prefixes on a
    finer granularity
  • Hierarchy Prefixes can be aggregated into
    supernets. (Not always done. Typically not, in
    fact.)

Customer 1
12.20.231.0/24
12.0.0.0/8
ATT
Internet
Customer 2
12.20.249.0/24
9
1994-1998 Linear Growth
Source Geoff Huston
  • About 10,000 new entries per year
  • In theory, less instability at the edges (why?)

10
Around 2000 Fast Growth Resumes
T. Hain, A Pragmatic Report on IPv4 Address
Space Consumption, Cisco IPJ, September 2005
Claim remaining /8s will be exhausted within the
next 5-10 years.
11
Fast growth resumes
Significant contributor Multihoming
Dot-Bomb Hiccup
Rapid growth in routing tables
Source Geoff Huston
12
Multihoming Can Stymie Aggregation
Verizon does not own 10.0.0.0/16. Must
advertise the more-specific route.
12.20.249.0/24
ATT
Verizon
12.20.249.0/24
12.20.249.0/24
Mid-Atlantic Corporate Federal Credit Union (AS
30308)
  • Stub AS gets IP address space from one of its
    providers
  • One (or both) providers cannot aggregate the
    prefix

13
The Address Allocation Process
IANA
http//www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
AfriNIC
APNIC
ARIN
LACNIC
RIPE
Georgia Tech
  • Allocation policies of RIRs affect pressure on
    IPv4 address space

14
/8 Allocations from IANA
  • MIT, Ford, Halliburton, Boeing, Merck
  • Reclaiming space is difficult. A /8 is a
    bargaining chip!

15
Address Space Ownership
whois -h whois.arin.net 130.207.7.36 Querying
whois.arin.net whois.arin.net OrgName
Georgia Institute of Technology OrgID
GIT Address 258 Fourth St NW Address Rich
Building City Atlanta StateProv
GA PostalCode 30332 Country US NetRange
130.207.0.0 - 130.207.255.255 CIDR
130.207.0.0/16 NetName GIT NetHandle
NET-130-207-0-0-1 Parent NET-130-0-0-0-0 NetT
ype Direct Assignment NameServer
TROLL-GW.GATECH.EDU NameServer
GATECH.EDU Comment RegDate
1988-10-10 Updated 2000-02-01
RTechHandle ZG19-ARIN RTechName Georgia
Institute of TechnologyNetwork Services RTechPhone
1-404-894-5508 RTechEmail
hostmaster_at_gatech.edu OrgTechHandle
NETWO653-ARIN OrgTechName Network
Operations OrgTechPhone 1-404-894-4669
- Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) - Public
record of address allocations - ISPs should
update when delegating address space -
Often out-of-date
16
IPv6 and Address Space Scarcity
  • 128-bit addresses
  • Top 48-bits Public Routing Topology (PRT)
  • 3 bits for aggregation
  • 13 bits for TLA (like tier-1 ISPs)
  • 8 reserved bits
  • 24 bits for NLA
  • 16-bit Site Identifier aggregation within an AS
  • 64-bit Interface ID 48-bit Ethernet 16 more
    bits
  • Pure provider-based addressing
  • Changing ISPs requires renumbering

17
Header Formats
IPv4
18
Summary of Fields
  • Version (4 bits) only field to keep same
    position and name
  • Class (8 bits) new field
  • Flow Label (20 bits) new field
  • Payload Length (16 bits) length of data,
    slightly different from total length
  • Next Header (8 bits) type of the next header,
    new idea
  • Hop Limit (8 bits) was time-to-live, renamed
  • Source address (128 bits)
  • Destination address (128 bits)

19
IPv6 Claimed Benefits
  • Larger address space
  • Simplified header
  • Deeper hierarchy and policies for network
    architecture flexibility
  • Support for route aggregation
  • Easier renumbering and multihoming
  • Security (e.g., IPv6 Cryptographic Extensions)

20
IPv6 Flows
  • Traffic can be labeled with particular flow
    identifier for which a sender can expect special
    handling (e.g., different priority level)

21
IPv6 Deployment Options
Routing Infrastructure
  • IPv4 Tunnels
  • Dual-stack
  • Dedicated Links
  • MPLS

Applications
  • IPv6-to-IPv4 NAPT
  • Dual-stack servers

22
IPv6 Deployment Status
Big users Germany (33), EU (24), Japan (16),
Australia (16)
23
Transitioning Dual-Stack
  • Dual-Stack Approach Some nodes can send both
    IPv4 and IPv6 packets
  • Dual-stack nodes must determine whether a node is
    IPv6-capable or not
  • When communicating with an IPv4 node, an IPv4
    datagram must be used

24
Transitioning IPv6 over IPv4 Tunnels
One trick for mapping IPv6 addresses embed the
IPv4 address in low bits
http//www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk872/technologies
_white_paper09186a00800c9907.shtml
25
Reality 96 More Bits, No Magic
  • No real thought given to operational transition
  • IPv6 is not compatible with IPv4 on the wire
  • Variable-length addressing could have fixed this,
    but
  • Routing load wont necessarily be reduced
  • TE Model is the same
  • Address space fragmentation will still exist
  • The space is not infinite 64 bits to every LAN
  • Not necessarily better security
  • Routers dont fully support all IPv6 features in
    hardware

26
Another extension Security (IPSec)
  • Backwards compatible with IPv4
  • Transport mode Can be deployed only at endpoints
    (no deployment at routers needed)
  • Encrypted IP payload encapsulated within an
    additional, ordinary IP datagram
  • Provides
  • Encryption of datagram
  • Data Integrity
  • Origin authentication

27
Architectural Discontents
  • Lack of features
  • End-to-end QoS, host control over routing,
    end-to-end multicast,
  • Lack of protection and accountability
  • Denial-of-service (DoS)
  • Architecture is brittle

28
Architectural Brittleness
  • Hosts are tied to IP addresses
  • Mobility and multi-homing pose problems
  • Services are tied to hosts
  • A service is more than just one host
    replication, migration, composition
  • Packets might require processing at
    intermediaries before reaching destination
  • Middleboxes (NATs, firewalls, )

29
Internet Naming is Host-Centric
  • Two global namespaces DNS and IP addresses
  • These namespaces are host-centric
  • IP addresses network location of host
  • DNS names domain of host
  • Both closely tied to an underlying structure
  • Motivated by host-centric applications

30
Trouble with Host-Centric Names
  • Host-centric names are fragile
  • If a name is based on mutable properties of its
    referent, it is fragile
  • Example If Joes Web page www.berkeley.edu/hippi
    e moves to www.wallstreetstiffs.com/yuppie, Web
    links to his page break
  • Fragile names constrain movement
  • IP addresses are not stable host names
  • DNS URLs are not stable data names

31
Solution Name Services and Hosts Separately
  • Service identifiers (SIDs) are host-independent
    data names
  • End-point identifiers (EIDs) are
    location-independent host names
  • Protocols bind to names, and resolve them
  • Apps should use SIDs as data handles
  • Transport connections should bind to EIDs

32
The Naming Layers
User-level descriptors (e.g., search)
App-specific search/lookup returns SID
App session
Resolves SID to EID Opens transport conns
Transport
Resolves EID to IP
IP
33
SIDs and EIDs should be Flat
  • Flat names impose no structure on entities
  • Structured names stable only if name structure
    matches natural structure of entities
  • Can be resolved scalably using, e.g., DHTs
  • Flat names can be used to name anything
  • Once you have a large flat namespace, you never
    need other global handles

34
Flat Names Flexible Migration
  • SID abstracts all object reachability information
  • Objects any granularity (files, directories)
  • Benefit Links (referrers) dont break

Domain H
HTTP GET /docs/pub.pdf
10.1.2.3
ltA HREF http//f012012/pub.pdf gthere is a
paperlt/Agt
/docs/
HTTP GET /user/pubs/pub.pdf
Domain Y
20.2.4.6
(10.1.2.3,80, /docs/)
/user/pubs/
(20.2.4.6,80, /user/pubs/)
Resolution Service
About PowerShow.com