Big Picture (was: Class 'E' - Extending the IP address)

[Pierre (P.)Fortin <[e-mail]>]

Let me see if I've got this straight...

[In all the following figures, ABCDE = assigned and abcde = unassigned
network addresses.]

(Assuming various proposals were adopted;)
The Class structure is taking us recursively though a n/2 process of
assigning addresses resulting in the following picture (from RFC1166):

      0         1         2         3
      01234567890123456789012345678901

000x  0aAAaAAAAA$AAAAAAaAAAAAAaAAAAAAA    [$ = 10.0.0.0]
001x  aaaAAaaaaAAAAaA@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa    [@ = my Class A (47)]
010x  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
011x  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaL    [L = loopback]
                                              (mainly 127.0.0.1)
100x  BBBBBBBBBBB<BBBBBBBBBBBBBB>bbbbb    [<...> gleaned from RFC1335]
101x  bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
110x  Cccccccccccccccc
1101                  ################    C#
1110  Dddddddddddddddd
11110                 xxxxxxxx            length = x[64|92|128|160|...]
11111                         eeeeeeee

Simplified further:

      AAAaaaaaBBbbc#de    address space allocated
      ???     =-  .       address space used

It's bad enough the bulk of the 2**32 addresses have been wasted; now
I'm hearing (er... reading) proposals to "punch a hole in the bottom of
the barrel"...  C'mon!!!  Let's get real!  :^\

Frankly, I feel very much like an address "hog" when I look at this
picture.  Especially when I consider that I have ~30,000 hosts spread
over ~600 subnets for an average of 50 per... (less than 0.2% used!!!)

If the Internet has ~900,000 connected hosts, that's only 0.02% used.
WHOA!  I'm already making 10x better use of my Class A address space
than the rest of the Internet...  that makes me feel [a little] better.

Seriously, while some of my previous postings were obviously premature,
I *still* have a problem buying into the premise that we are running
out of address space.  The real problem, as I see it, is that the
address space has been **squandered**...

In my case, I followed RFC950 to subnet network 47 at 12 & 12 bits.
Given what we [at BNR/NT] now know about squeezing blood out of a
stone, it *is* possible to have 600-800+ high-performance/high-traffic
devices on a single subnet while still operating relatively safely in
terms of broad-/multi-cast issues.  [Done here using Multi-Port
Bridges (MPB) with FDDI backbones.

I have not yet made use of un-numbered serial links which would
reduce our subnet "waste" by ~150.

So, assuming:
  a. <1022 devices per subnet
  b.  <510 subnets corporately
we COULD have gotten along with 2**19 addresses (524,288) for a 5.7%
address utilization.  Then again, with aggregation (through variable-
length subnet masks and RFC1219), we could have done just fine with
2**18 (9 & 9 split) addresses (262,144) for 11.4% utilization and
room to grow; but this is HINDSIGHT...

Looking at the picture differently:
  actual Class A:  16,777,216 or 0.3906% or 1/256 of the Internet
  classless 2**19:    524,288 or 0.0122% or 1/8192
  classless 2**18:    262,144 or 0.0061% or 1/16384

Differently again (using 2**15 as "in-use" addresses on my network 47):
  actual Class A:   99.8% WASTED!!
  classless 2**19:  93.8% WASTED!!
  classless 2**18:  87.5% WASTED.

Remember from above that my address utilization is 10x BETTER than
the current Internet... and I _still_ feel TERRIBLE about this
situation.

With the current state of "secure gateway" technology, there is NO
WAY that my Class A network will be visible to the Internet; and this
will likely be so beyond any actual deployment of "solutions" being
discussed here.  So, feel free to consider network 47 "free space" for
the purposes of researching new solutions.

I wonder how many other Class A networks are similarly hidden?  Any
Class A address owners care to give their views?  Especially those who
are not visible to the Internet...

With my [hidden] Class A network, regardless of how many gateways I
have to the real Internet, I feel is is *MY* responsibility to get
traffic from *anywhere* on my network to an Internet gateway for
external access.  As a result, I find the use of several existing
Class C addresses MORE than adequate for Internet access.  Of course,
this is possible through our requirement that internal users logon to
a secure gateway to then have access [via a single Class C address] to
the Internet.  In other words: other than horsepower limits (CPU and
links), our users appear to the Internet as one of two hosts at a
couple of gateway locations (FOUR addresses on TWO Class C nets to the
Internet).  Each user only really adds to the "port" numbers used.  Now
I really feel like I'm wasting Internet address space...

Heck, with this scheme, I would think that a *portion* of my Class C
gateway networks would be sufficient.  They are subnetted 4 and 4 with
a couple of gateway hosts each...

I suppose that having a more transparent gateway would be desired by
my users; but having an internal-Class-A to external-Class-C-plus-port
translation gateway _might_ be satisfactory (gotta *think* about this
one some more).

Random thoughts:
---------------

Looking at the 2**32 address space re-divided into two 2**31 spaces and
overlapped; like this:
      0         1         2         3
      01234567890123456789012345678901
x00x  <--------------A&B-------------> [assuming light Class A use]
x01x  <--------------A&b------------->
x10x  <-----a&C------><-----a&C#----->
x11x  <-----a&d------><-----a&e------>
I might find it [a little] easier to accept all "the sky is falling"
arguments.

If I next [possibly naively] believe that all the visible Class A
networks *could* individually fit into Class B spaces using *existing*
subnetting schemes, the ENTIRE (less 0 & 127) existing Class A space
would be free... at a cost of very few Class B addresses.

Hmmm... I wonder how everyone would feel about 2**31 (2,147,483,648)
addresses within which we could investigate new allocations, addresses,
IDs and routing mechanisms?  ...without otherwise destroying the
current [bad as it is perceived] infrastructure.
Just one bit to check:
 0 = research traffic
 1 = "normal" user traffic

Let your mind w[a/o]nder...  :^)

-EndOfRandomThoughts-

Just trying to help. Really...

Cheers,
Pierre

PS: Regardless of what the outcome is within these discussions, there are
still the issues of WHAT we are telling new users to do via existing RFCs.
It's one thing to have a solution, but quite another to make sure it is
not similarly scr*wed by current RFCs/thinking...