The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
This looks like interesting (and operational) reading. ----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org ----- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing Author(s) : E. Terrell Filename : draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt Pages : 22 Date : 24-Aug-99 This paper was necessitated by an overwhelming desire; an attempt to end the apparent disparity in the dissemination of information absent of the logical and thoroughness in rendering an explanation of the IP Addressing Scheme. To render a more pointed fact, I needed to pass a CISCO Certification Examination. However, this can never be accomplished, if the information that is needed and used in the preparation thereof, lacks continuity and propagates errors pertaining to foundational information. Needless to say, my endeavors were not in vein. That is,as a direct result of this undertaking, I corrected the underlining errors, derived a possible alternative approach to the IPv4 Addressing Scheme, and expanded its Class system ( that is no longer in use ). In other words, I was indeed successful in the elimination of the problems associated with IP Address Flooding inherent in IPv4 and the complexities of IPv6. In short, small business and single family dwellings can now have the option of having their own private IP Addressing Scheme, without the disparity resulting from the steep learning curve presented in IPv6. While the Internet Community at large, will not suffer a shortage of the availability IP Addresses for assigned distribution. Especially since, while the number available IP Addresses do not exceed the amount reported to be provided, if IPv6 is implemented. It does indeed, provide enough IP Addresses to cover their continued issuance for at least another 100 years or so. Which is dependent upon the adoption of an adequate scheme for its allocation and distribution. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ----- End forwarded message ----- ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "The Ogre philosopher Gnerdel beleived the purpose of life | | was to live as high on the food chain as possible. | | She refused to eat vegetarians, and preferred to live entirely | | on creatures that preyed on sentient beings." | | -Magic: The Gathering "Grey Ogre" | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
If someone reads this, understands it, and wants to summarize, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it. I attempted the first two pages and gave up when my eyes started bleeding. It badly needs a technical writer to re-do it. :/ -Jon On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:55:42 -0700, jdfalk@cybernothing.org writes:
This looks like interesting (and operational) reading.
----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org -----
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories .
Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing
It needs more than that. After 5 minutes I realized that if this guy was an accountant we'd all be rich...and later thrown in jail after an audit was done. -craig At 15:34 -0500 1999/08/25, Jon Green wrote:
If someone reads this, understands it, and wants to summarize, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it. I attempted the first two pages and gave up when my eyes started bleeding. It badly needs a technical writer to re-do it. :/
-Jon
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:55:42 -0700, jdfalk@cybernothing.org writes:
This looks like interesting (and operational) reading.
----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org -----
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories
.
Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing
You all are happy... for me the _good scientific language_ was the problem too... But all this looks like a joke... Except one idea _we don't use all information keeping by the network masks_. Through it can improve the routing hierarchy, but not the address range (which is from 0.0.0.0 to 223.255.254.254 wit a little exceptions). To increase address range Internet shgould use extra bits for the address, foir example by using two-level hierarchy schema (and it do this - by NAT translation, for example, bits from the PORT field are used as the address space). THe more interesting issue for me is _is it possible to use Source-Routing_ for the hierarchical routing as well? Through if someone translate this joke to the normal labguage, I'll appreciate too -:). Good paper - for the evening hours... Alex. On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Craig A. Haney wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:57:13 -0400 From: Craig A. Haney <craig@seamless.kludge.net> To: Jon Green <jcgreen@netins.net>, "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
It needs more than that. After 5 minutes I realized that if this guy was an accountant we'd all be rich...and later thrown in jail after an audit was done.
-craig
At 15:34 -0500 1999/08/25, Jon Green wrote:
If someone reads this, understands it, and wants to summarize, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it. I attempted the first two pages and gave up when my eyes started bleeding. It badly needs a technical writer to re-do it. :/
-Jon
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:55:42 -0700, jdfalk@cybernothing.org writes:
This looks like interesting (and operational) reading.
----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org -----
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories
.
Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Through if someone translate this joke to the normal labguage, I'll appreciate too -:). Good paper - for the evening hours...
I DID look at it pretty deeply. As far as I can tell the concept is basically this: Today, we determine the network part of the address via ANDing the netmask with the address. Thus, if we have (for simplicity sake) a classful B address we have something like: 144.1.8.3 Address OR 10010000 00000001 00001000 00000011 in binary 255.255.0.0 netmask OR 11111111 11111111 00000000 00000000 in binary You derive the network number by anding the two above, such as: 10010000 00000001 00000000 00000000 Or, in other words everyhting starting with 144.1 as the first two octets is on the same network. What this proposal appears to be proposing is to permit NON-CONTIGUOUS netmasks such as: 255.128.127.0 Or, in binary: 1111111111 10000000 01111111 00000000 Thus, the network number would actually consist of all 8 bits of octet one, the first bit of octet two, the last 7 bits of octet 3 and none of octed four. Initially this seems like a good idea in that by allocating in this fashion you can reuse bits over and over - that is, my host bits can be your network bits and vice versa. Assuming that netmask info was available end to end for both source and destination addresses this would be a really cool idea. However, the problem is that since the netmask is not available for "destination" addresses at the source end, There is no way to determine which bits mean what for proper routing. In addition, even if you did provide that information at the source end, it would have to be passed on with each packet through all the routers so they could uniquely identify which of the multiple potential endpoints for a given destination address that the packet is going to. In all reality, I think that the IP address problem is solving itself. The majority of the customers I deal with have a SINGLE ip address for all of their internal machines. I have actually allocated LESS space than I have reclaimed over the past year and a half from customers who have moved to Private Address space. To facilitate this I sell them a $250 "iGate Junior" which is basically a 486 with some software I've put together in house (shameless plug). The iGate Jr. basically takes all of the inside requests and NAT's them into a single outside address. It also takes inbound connections for Mail and other services and routes them to the appropriate inside box. As a result, a typical small-to-medium sized company only needs ONE real ip address in most circumstances. - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
What this proposal appears to be proposing is to permit NON-CONTIGUOUS netmasks such as:
255.128.127.0
Or, in binary:
1111111111 10000000 01111111 00000000
Thus, the network number would actually consist of all 8 bits of octet one, the first bit of octet two, the last 7 bits of octet 3 and none of octed four.
Non-contigious masks were allowed up until the CIDR era... :) --bill
At 10:43 AM 8/26/99 -0700, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
What this proposal appears to be proposing is to permit NON-CONTIGUOUS netmasks such as:
255.128.127.0
Or, in binary:
1111111111 10000000 01111111 00000000
Thus, the network number would actually consist of all 8 bits of octet one, the first bit of octet two, the last 7 bits of octet 3 and none of octed four.
Non-contigious masks were allowed up until the CIDR era... :)
--bill
As an exercise in insanity, when I teach my TCP/IP course, I use the following example 206.183.244.0 / 255.255.255.170 and ask the students to find the subnet address, first usable node, last usable node and broadcast address for each subnet. Takes them about three hours and then they appreciate the recommendation that all subnet bits be contiguous. What it does do very well is hammer home how these things actually work in terms of varying the host bits and network bits :) eric ========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 ICQ: 41927048 Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider
10010000 00000001 00000000 00000000
Or, in other words everyhting starting with 144.1 as the first two octets is on the same network.
What this proposal appears to be proposing is to permit NON-CONTIGUOUS netmasks such as:
255.128.127.0
It was obvious, through the author did a lot to mascarade this simple idea amongs the heap of words -:). Just as the resume - it's not problem to use broadcast bits, it's not a problem to propose non-contiguous network masks, but (1) hosts do not know masks at all, IP address only, and (2) 99% existing routing protocols and ip forwarding software can't work with non-contiguous masks at all. But I think it is nessesary to establish some aware for the such works - when so plain idea is described by so complex way -:).
In all reality, I think that the IP address problem is solving itself. The majority of the customers I deal with have a SINGLE ip address for all of their internal machines. I have actually allocated LESS space than I have reclaimed over the past year and a half from customers who have moved to Private Address space. To facilitate this I sell them a $250 "iGate
Junior" which is basically a 486 with some software I've put together in house (shameless plug). The iGate Jr. basically takes all of the inside requests and NAT's them into a single outside address. It also takes inbound connections for Mail and other services and routes them to the appropriate inside box. As a result, a typical small-to-medium sized company only needs ONE real ip address in most circumstances. JUst as I'v wrote yesterday - if you allow to assign WWW addresses (or exactly, SERVICE addresses) to the _IP:PORT_ instead of _IP_ (and ask _give the port from your local _service_ table_, you'll be free in usage
No doubt. Using private address space + NAT decrease the address needs and (important) increase your security a lot (except, of course, L4/L7 viruses, trojans, etc... - usial student's mistake is to forgot about this levels). the same IP address even for the incoming services, not for the clients only (as todays).
- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Are you referring to RFC 2052? S Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex P. Rudnev To: Forrest W. Christian Cc: Craig A. Haney ; Jon Green ; J.D. Falk ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 5:05 Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4... [snip] JUst as I'v wrote yesterday - if you allow to assign WWW addresses (or exactly, SERVICE addresses) to the _IP:PORT_ instead of _IP_ (and ask _give the port from your local _service_ table_, you'll be free in usage the same IP address even for the incoming services, not for the clients only (as todays). Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Yes, but (unfortunately) the success of the failure of this approach depends more from the client's software (and can be successfull if this can be hidden by the TCP/IP stack and prevent re-writing the client's software) and less from the RFC itself. Through I meant something like virtual host defined as _IP address, port shift_ pair. Anyway, no one approach is used widely now. Alex. On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:10:50 -0500 From: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com> To: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
Are you referring to RFC 2052?
S
Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation
----- Original Message ----- From: Alex P. Rudnev To: Forrest W. Christian Cc: Craig A. Haney ; Jon Green ; J.D. Falk ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 5:05 Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
[snip]
JUst as I'v wrote yesterday - if you allow to assign WWW addresses (or exactly, SERVICE addresses) to the _IP:PORT_ instead of _IP_ (and ask _give the port from your local _service_ table_, you'll be free in usage the same IP address even for the incoming services, not for the clients only (as todays).
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Be sure and read the end as well.... References 1. E. Terrell ( not published notarized, 1979 ) " The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem: The Revolution in Mathematical Thought " -scott At 11:55 AM 08/25/1999 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
This looks like interesting (and operational) reading.
----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org -----
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing Author(s) : E. Terrell Filename : draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt Pages : 22 Date : 24-Aug-99
This paper was necessitated by an overwhelming desire; an attempt to end the apparent disparity in the dissemination of information absent of the logical and thoroughness in rendering an explanation of the IP Addressing Scheme. To render a more pointed fact, I needed to pass a CISCO Certification Examination. However, this can never be accomplished, if the information that is needed and used in the preparation thereof, lacks continuity and propagates errors pertaining to foundational information. Needless to say, my endeavors were not in vein. That is,as a direct result of this undertaking, I corrected the underlining errors, derived a possible alternative approach to the IPv4 Addressing Scheme, and expanded its Class system ( that is no longer in use ). In other words, I was indeed successful in the elimination of the problems associated with IP Address Flooding inherent in IPv4 and the complexities of IPv6. In short, small business and single family dwellings can now have the option of having their own private IP Addressing Scheme, without the disparity resulting from the steep learning curve presented in IPv6. While the Internet Community at large, will not suffer a shortage of the availability IP Addresses for assigned distribution. Especially since, while the number available IP Addresses do not exceed the amount reported to be provided, if IPv6 is implemented. It does indeed, provide enough IP Addresses to cover their continued issuance for at least another 100 years or so. Which is dependent upon the adoption of an adequate scheme for its allocation and distribution.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.
----- End forwarded message -----
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "The Ogre philosopher Gnerdel beleived the purpose of life | | was to live as high on the food chain as possible. | | She refused to eat vegetarians, and preferred to live entirely | | on creatures that preyed on sentient beings." | | -Magic: The Gathering "Grey Ogre" | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
SUMMARY of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt By distinguishing apparently identical IP addresses by using different subnet masks one can increase the number of IP addresses distinguishable by a 32-bit number to greater than 2^32. Except for the problem that you need 32 extra bits to carry a mask or 5 extra bits to carry the masklen. IETF should have waited until 2000/04/01 before posting this. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Bird Tel: 209-742-5000 FAX: 209-966-3117 President POP: 209-742-5156 PGR: 209-742-9979 Iron Mtn Systems http://member.yosemite.net/
At 16:22 -0700 1999/08/25, Mike Bird wrote:
SUMMARY of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt
By distinguishing apparently identical IP addresses by using different subnet masks one can increase the number of IP addresses distinguishable by a 32-bit number to greater than 2^32.
yeah, then you'll need a minor adjustment to the routing table size when corporations and providers want to change networks or multihome.
Except for the problem that you need 32 extra bits to carry a mask or 5 extra bits to carry the masklen.
nice try, next topic please. -craig
SUMMARY of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt
By distinguishing apparently identical IP addresses by using different subnet masks one can increase the number of IP addresses distinguishable by a 32-bit number to greater than 2^32. No doubt. But... the IP packet have not _netmask_ field, and TCP/IP socket have not too. If you add this, it's easier to add extra address bits.
On the other hand, I can send the draft too -:). If we add 'PORT RANGE' field to the 'PTR' DNS record, and some trick to the 'xx.xx.xx.xx' address notation, we can split one IP address to the 4 - 8 hosts by allocating the different port ranges for every one. And it do not need to rewrite TCP stack and routers at all, only a little part in DNS and service resolver, or in the 'connect' and 'bind' function (and can be realised by the NAT just now. -:). There is not too big problem to increase IPv4 address space twise (cook one bit from the port field, and that's all). Through I wonder why people are making so many noice aroung unexisting IPv6 and don't try to improve existing systems a little... IPv4 have a few opportunities to create milti-level address hierarchy: - source routing - port/address mapping - netmask and AS numbers (for the routing only). Through after SNMP, MLPS etc I wonder to nothing...
Except for the problem that you need 32 extra bits to carry a mask or 5 extra bits to carry the masklen.
IETF should have waited until 2000/04/01 before posting this.
---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Bird Tel: 209-742-5000 FAX: 209-966-3117 President POP: 209-742-5156 PGR: 209-742-9979 Iron Mtn Systems http://member.yosemite.net/
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 11:55:42AM -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Internet-Drafts@ietf.org -----
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressing in IPv4 Questions the need for Another IP System of Addressing Author(s) : E. Terrell Filename : draft-terrell-math-ipaddr-ipv4-00.txt Pages : 22 Date : 24-Aug-99
Sean, here's an answer to your question about affects of GPS rollover. Obviously, it's screwed up this person's clocks enough to think that this is April 1st. -dorian
participants (11)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Craig A. Haney -
Dorian Kim -
Eric Germann -
Forrest W. Christian -
J.D. Falk -
Jon Green -
Mike Bird -
Scott Huddle -
Stephen Sprunk