The following text is copyright 1993 by
Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction, as long as
attribution is given and this notice is included.
By: Scott Bradner
On and off for the last
year or two there have been all sorts of "death by reason of success"
stories about TCP/IP popping up all over the place. The basic theme of these
stories is that TCP/IP has become too popular. The assignment of network
numbers is proceeding at such a pace that the pool of one type of network addresses,
known as Class B addresses, will be exhausted very soon. The first predictions,
which surfaced almost two years ago, had the point of exhaustion occurring by
now.
There are basically 3
types of network addresses used in TCP/IP: Class A network addresses which are
capable of supporting 16 million hosts and are used for very large companies or
even whole countries; Class B network addresses which are able to support 65
thousand hosts and are used in average sized companies and educational
institutions; and Class C network addresss which can support 254 hosts and are
used for small organizations or individual LANs.
The argument went that
because of their size, most places required the use of one or more Class B
network address. More than half of the potential Class B addresses had already
assigned and the rate of assignment was increasing. Projecting the growth in
demand showed that the supply would be exhausted in a year or two.
Somewhat forgotten by
the popular press in this doomsday prediction was the fact that there were
millions of Class C addresses available and organizations could use a whole
bunch of Class Cs instead of a few Class Bs. However, there is unfortunately a
real problem with this approach. The routers that hold the national and
international backbone segments of the Internet together must maintain a
listing of all reachable networks and a map showing how to get to each network.
This map is known as a routing table. The routers exchange information and
status messages to maintain the routing tables. Currently there are about
13,000 networks in the routing tables of the backbone routers. Increasing the
size of these tables produces an unacceptable load on the routers themselves
and increases the amount of overhead traffic required between the routers.
Things did seem rather
bleak. A successor to TCP/IP would be required in the very near future.
(Actually a successor to IP since TCP is not directly affected by the
addressing problem.) A number of proposals were made to the IETF each vieing
for the honor (if that be the right word) of being anointed the rightful heir.
The pressure was high to make a quick choice since development time is
necessary to implement and shakedown the required software. The IETF has been
debating the proposals and debating what procedures should be followed in
making such a far -reaching decision. One does have to be a bit careful when
the result of your choice might have to be installed on a few million computers
all over the world.
Working under a lot of
pressure does not make a careful and deliberate decision any easier. However
some of the pressure may now be off for a while. There is a relatively new
proposal known as Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) which allows the
aggregation of routing information. A company could be assigned 5,000 Class C
network addresses but would only have to appear as a single entry in a routing
table. The IAB, in RFC 1481, endorsed the CIDR architecture and its
implementation .
With the assumption that
CIDR will be deployed, multiple Class C network addresses are now being
assigned in place of Class B network addresses. Projections based on the
current assignment strategy and rate (the demand is still increasing) indicate
that the supply of network addresses will be exhausted in about the year 2000.
The use of CIDR does not remove the requirement to make a choice about a new IP
but it can postpone the deadline for making such a choice. This will allow a
more measured decision process and, one hopes, a better final product.
On a completely
different topic. It has long been a tradition on the Internet mailing lists to
end ones postings with a disclaimer. The idea is to be sure that no one
confuses the author's opinions with those of the author's employers. This is
something I should have been doing in this column from the start since Harvard
is a large and varied place and it is quite unlikely that any opinion that I
might put forth would be universally supported across the University.
I'm going to start a
disclaimer of the month featurette using disclaimers gleaned from the Internet.
One I will not be using is from Martin Cockerell of Whiteleaf Bucks in the
U.K.; "Any views expressed are fully supported by the company. (*I own
it*)"