Browse Prior Art Database

Class A Subnet Experiment Results and Recommendations (RFC1879)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000004135D
Original Publication Date: 1996-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 5 page(s) / 10K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

B. Manning: AUTHOR

Abstract

Status of this Memo

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 28% of the total text.

Network Working Group B. Manning, Editor

Request for Comments: 1879 ISI

Category: Informational January 1996

Class A Subnet Experiment

Results and Recommendations

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.

Discussion/Purpose

This memo documents some experiences with the RFC 1797 [1] subnet A

experiment (performed by the Net39 Test Group (see credits)) and

provides a number of recommendations on future direction for both the

Internet Registries and the Operations community.

Not all proposed experiments in RFC 1797 were done. Only the "case

one" type delegations were made. Additional experimentation was done

within the DNS service, by supporting a root nameserver and the

primary for the domain from within the subnetted address space. In

addition, testing was done on classless delegation [2].

Internet Services offered over the RFC 1797 experiment were:

Finger

HTTP

Telnet

FTP server/client

Gopher

kerberos

lpr (and its ilk)

X

DNS

F.Root-Servers.Net, a root name server had an interface defined as

part of the RFC 1797 experiment. Attached is a report fragment on

it's performance: "My root server has processed 400,000,000 queries

in the last 38 days, and well over half of them were to the temporary

39.13.229.241 address (note that I retained the old 192.5.5.241

address since I knew a lot of folks would not update their root.cache

files and I didn't want to create a black hole.)" - Paul Vixie

Initial predictions [3] seemed to indicate that the safest path for

an ISP that participates in such a routing system is to have -all- of

the ISP clients be either:

a) singly connected to one upstream ISP

OR

b) running a classless interior routing protocol

It is also noted that a network with default route may not notice it

has potential routing problems until it starts using subnets of

traditional A's internally.

Problems & Solutions

Operations

There were initial problems in at least one RIPE181 [4]

implementation. It is clear that operators need to register in the

Internet Routing Registry (IRR) all active aggregates and delegations

for any given prefix. Additionally, there need to be methods for

determining who is authori...