Fujikawa Kenji
ABSTRACT
In order to suppress the increase in the global routing table size, address hierarchicalization and multihoming that does not depend on routing mechanisms are required. This type of multihoming can be achieved by a method that allows an end site to be allocated multiple address spaces from upstream ISPs and utilize all of them. We call this type of multihoming end-to-end (E2E) multihoming. In E2E multihoming, when a site adds or changes an upstream ISP, the addresses are also added or changed. If a network manager must handle these changes manually, these changes become too cumbersome a task for him or her. Thus, in order to deploy E2E multihoming, a hierarchical automatic renumbering protocol is required. We propose a Hierarchical Automatic locator Number Allocation (HANA) protocol, which considers hierarchical end-to-end multihoming, and reduces the manual router settings. In the HANA protocol, the lower part of an addresses (midfixes) are automatically allocated in each domain, and the upper part of an addresses (prefixes) are distributed from the upper-level ISPs in multiple layers, in the manner as the previously-allocated midfixes are combined. In addition, we discuss the implementation and evaluation of the HANA protocol, and show that it is manageable in real networks.
- T. Bu, L. Gao, and D. Towsley, "On characterizing BGP routing table growth," Comput. Netw., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 45--54, 2004. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. Huston and G. Armitage, "Projecting future IPv4 router requirements from trends in dynamic BGP behaviour," In Australian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ATNAC, 2006.Google Scholar
- AKARI Project, "http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/."Google Scholar
- H. Harai, K. Fujikawa, V. P. Kafle, T. Miyazawa, M. Murata, M. Ohnishi, M. Ohta, and T. Umezawa, "Design guidelines for new generation network architecture," IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications, vol. E93-B, no. 3, pp. 462--465, 2010.Google Scholar
- M. Ohta and M. Sola, "The architecture of end to end multihoming," IETF Internet-Drafts (work in progress), http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt, April 2000.Google Scholar
- K. Fujikawa, K. Ohira, and M. Ohta, "A hierarchical automatic address allocation method considering end-to-end multihoming," IEICE Tech. Rep., vol. 109, no. 262, pp. 57--60, Oct. 2009.Google Scholar
- J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark, "End-to-end arguments in system design," ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 277--288, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Jen, M. Meisel, H. Yan, D. Massey, L. Wang, B. Zhang, and L. Zhang, "Towards A New Internet Routing Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from Transit Core," Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-VII), October 2008.Google Scholar
- J. Moy, "OSPF version 2," RFC 2328, April 1998.Google Scholar
- R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6," December 1999.Google Scholar
- R. Droms, "Dynamic host configuration protocol," March 1997.Google Scholar
- "Active BGP entries (FIB)," http://bgp.potaroo.net/as2.0/bgp-active.html.Google Scholar
- V. Fuller and T. Li, "Classless inter-domain routing (CIDR): The internet address assignment and aggregation plan," August 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Meyer, and D. Lewis, "Locator/ID separation protocol (LISP)," Internet draft (work in progress) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt, Oct. 2011.Google Scholar
- A. Feldmann, L. Cittadini, W. Mühlbauer, R. Bush, and O. Maennel, "Hair: Hierarchical architecture for internet routing," Re-Architecting the Internet (ReArch '09), 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Nordmark and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 multihoming Shim protocol for IPv6," RFC 5533, June 2009.Google Scholar
- R. Stewart, Q. Xie, M. Tuexen, S. Maruyama, and M. Kozuka, "Stream control transmission protocol (SCTP), dynamic address reconfiguration," RFC 5061, September 2007.Google Scholar
- R. Moskowitz and P. Nikander, "Host identity protocol (HIP) architecture," RFC 4423, may 2006.Google Scholar
- R. Draves, "Default address selection for internet protocol version 6 (IPv6)," February 2003.Google Scholar
- M. Crawford, "Router renumbering for IPv6," RFC 2894, August 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Chelius, E. Fleury, and L. Toutain, "No administration protocol (NAP) for IPv6 router auto-configuration," Advanced Information Networking and Applications, International Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 801--806, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Leroy and O. Bonaventure, "A secure mechanism for address block allocation and distribution," Proceedings of the 7th international IFIP-TC6 networking conference on AdHoc and sensor networks, wireless networks, next generation internet, pp. 748--755, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Fujikawa and M. Ohta, "Cooperation of hierarchical automatic locator number allocation protocol HANA and DNS," vol. 110, no. 260, pp. 29--34, October 2010.Google Scholar
- M. Ohta and K. Fujikawa, "IP--: A reduced internet protocol for optical packet networking," IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications, vol. E93-B, no. 3, pp. 466--469, 2010.Google Scholar
- JGN--X, "http://www.jgn.nict.go.jp/."Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The basic procedures of hierarchical automatic locator number allocation protocol HANA
Recommendations
Inter-AS Locator Allocation of Hierarchical Automatic Number Allocation in a 10,000-AS Network
SAINT '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/IPSJ 12th International Symposium on Applications and the InternetA Hierarchical Automatic Number Allocation (HANA) protocol, which allocates locators to ASes hierarchically, is one solution for the problem of BGP table increase. We describe hierarchical inter-AS locator allocation by HANA and emulate locator ...
Comments