    Network Working Group                                          R. Hinden
    Request for Comments: 1955                        Ipsilon Networks, Inc.
    Category: Informational                                        June 1996

        New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG

    Status of This Memo

       This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
       does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
       this memo is unlimited.

    Abstract

       This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC
       1550.  Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the
       IPng area of any ideas expressed within.  Comments should be
       submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list.

       This memo describes a proposal made to to the Routing and Addressing
       group [ROAD] January 1992 by Robert Hinden.  It was originally sent
       as an email message.  It proposes a medium term solution to the
       Internet's routing and addressing problems.

    INTRODUCTION

       I would like to propose a new scheme which I believe is a good medium
       term solution to the routing and address problems of the internet.
       It has the following positive attributes:

          - No Changes to Hosts
          - No Changes to Most Routers
          - No New Routing Protocols
          - No New Internet Protocols
          - No Translation of Addresses in Packets
          - Reduces the Routing Table Size in All Routers
          - Uses the Current Internet Address Structure

       It is not a solution good for all time, because it does impose some
       size limits and does not support new internet services such as
       guaranteed bandwidth, delay, etc.  It does require border routers to
       do additional processing, but does not require any packet
       translation.  I believe that this scheme will give us enough time to
       put into place a long term solution (i.e. pick one or more of CLNP,
       *NAT, IDPR, IDRP, Nimrod, Unified, NewIP, etc.)

    Hinden                       Informational                      [Page 1]

    RFC 1955                       IP Encaps                       June 1996

       This scheme is based on the ideas presented by Deborah Estrin (route
       on ADs), Martha Steenstrup (encapsulation), and probably steals from
       ideas put forward by Noel Chiappa, Van Jacobson , Ross Callon, Dave
       Oran, and everyone else in the ROAD group.

    CONTEXT

       I think that we (the ROAD group) agree that in the short term we need
       to make better use of the IP address space.  I think we also (mostly)
       agree that in the long term we need a solution that can deal with a
       very large number of end points and routes, as well as support new
       services such as guarantees of service, source selected routes, etc.
       We do not agree on any of the details of this but do agree that we
       can not figure out a long term solution before March.  We do agree
       that we should start working on a long term solution(s).

       What this leaves is the need for a good medium term solution which
       can keep the Internet going until we can design and deploy a long
       term solution.  The medium term solution wants to be the most "cost
       effective".  It should buy us the most time to develop a long term
       solution and do it with as little change to the existing Internet as
       possible.

       I propose this scheme as a new medium term solution.

    NEW SCHEME

       The basic idea is that inter-domain routing be done by routing on
       autonomous domains (AD).  The key is how this is done.  The mechanism
       to do this is for the border routers to encapsulate the original IP
       datagrams with another IP header.  The source and destination
       addresses in the new header (I will call it the AD-Header from here
       on) represent the source and destination ADs.

       When the first (entrance) border router receives a datagram from a
       host or router without an AD-Header it looks at the source and
       destination address and does a DNS lookup to get the addresses for
       the AD-Header.  It then adds an AD-Header and forwards the
       encapsulated datagram to its proper destination AD.

       The border routers would compute AD routes by running a routing
       protocol between themselves.  BGP or even IS-IS or OSPF for that
       matter, would work fine.  As you will see later, they might even be
       better.

       The addresses I propose to use for the AD addresses are plain old IP
       addresses.  A small number of Class A and Class B addresses would be
       reserved for this purpose.  The network number of the address would

    Hinden                       Informational                      [Page 2]

    RFC 1955                       IP Encaps                       June 1996

       indicate that it was an AD identifier.  The local part of the address
       would indicate the actual AD.  This would allow for many ADs to be
       supported.  For example, 10 Class-A and 10 Class-B addresses could
       accommodate (10*2^24 + 10*2^16) 168,427,500 ADs.  We clearly don't
       need that many for a long time.

       The reason why I would chose to get more than one network number to
       use to represent the AD address is I would use them to organize the
       ADs.  Let's call them commonwealths.  Each commonwealth would only
       have to know the detail of it's own ADs.

       Next I would have the border routers inject these AD addresses into
       the Intra-AD routing of transit ADs.  They would tell the routers
       inside of the transit AD that they (the border routers) were the
       route to each appropriate AD network.  Commonwealths that have
       multiple interconnects (probably the common case) could by the use of
       careful assignment of the AD addresses use subnetting to support
       reasonable routing between the commonwealths.  This is where OSPF or
       IS-IS might be better than BGP.  Also, IS-IS, with its ability to
       route on actual end points might be the best.

       The motivation behind injecting the AD addresses into the Intra-AD
       routing of the transit ADs, is that the routers in these ADs can
       forward the AD-Headers without knowing that they are special.  Only
       the entrance and exit border routers are required to do anything
       different.

       Finally when a AD-Header is received at the last (exit) border router
       it strips off the AD-Header and sends the datagram to the final
       destination.

       This scheme is based around the idea that IP addresses are globally
       unique.  I think that we will not actually run out of IP addresses
       for a long time and that we can live with the current addressing
       until we can deploy a long term solution.

       This scheme could be extended to not require globally unique IP
       address.  Effectively the combination of AD-Address and IP-Address is
       the globally unique address.  To use this scheme without globally
       unique IP-Addresses and without changing in the hosts would require a
       NAT mechanism in the border routers.  I think it would be preferable
       to change the hosts to have them do the DNS query and add the AD-
       header.  This could be the basis for the long term solution.

       Another interesting aspect of this scheme is that if we were to relax
       the current architecture where one IP-Address is always in only one
       AD, to allow an IP-Address to be in more than one AD, it would
       provide a solution to the issue of allowing a IP entity to get

    Hinden                       Informational                      [Page 3]

    RFC 1955                       IP Encaps                       June 1996

       service from more than one service provider.

    SUMMARY OF CHANGES REQUIRED

       The DNS needs to be extended to add an AD-Address entry for each
       name.  These will be used by the entry and exit border routers to get
       the AD-Addresses to use when building the AD-Headers.

       Border routers need to be extended to do the DNS lookup, perform AD-
       Header encapsulation, run an inter-AD routing algorithm using AD-
       Addresses, and be able to AD-Header de-encapsulation.

    CONCLUSION

       I believe that this scheme has may advantages.  These are:

          - Only border routers and the DNS need change.  No changes are
            required in hosts or non-border routers.

          - No performance impact on datagram forwarding except at entry
            and exit border routers.

          - Only a small impact on bandwidth utilization on transit
            networks due the addition of a 20 byte IP header to each
            datagram.

          - Removes the Inter-AD routing from Intra-AD routing and as a
            result solves the routing load (table size and computation)
            problem for the foreseeable future.

          - The routing load on the border routers is manageable because
            border routers only need to know the detail of the routing
            commonwealth they are a member of.  Other commonwealths appear
            as single addresses.

          - No requirement for new routing protocols to be designed or
            deployed.

          - No translation of packets from one address scheme to another.

          - Uses the current IP addressing structure.

          - It scales well even if there is on the order of one AD per IP
            network, because the AD-Addresses can be assigned logically.

    Hinden                       Informational                      [Page 4]

    RFC 1955                       IP Encaps                       June 1996

       It does have some disadvantages.  These are (at least):

          - It is not a long term solution in its initial form.

          - It assumes that the current IP-Addresses can remain globally
            unique for a long time.

    REFERENCES

       [ROAD] Gross, P., and P. Almquist, "IESG Deliberations on Routing
              and Addressing", RFC 1380, ANS, Stanford University,
              November 1992.

    SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

       Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

    AUTHOR'S ADDRESS

       Robert M. Hinden
       Ipsilon Networks, Inc.
       2191 East Bayshore Road
       Suite 100
       Palo Alto, CA 94303
       USA

       EMail: hinden@ipsilon.com
       Phone: +1 (415) 846-4604

    Hinden                       Informational                      [Page 5]