💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc1916.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: tools, applications
Network Working Group H. Berkowitz
Request for Comments: 1916 PSC International
Category: Informational P. Ferguson
cisco Systems, Inc.
W. Leland
Bellcore
P. Nesser
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
February 1996
Enterprise Renumbering: Experience and Information Solicitation
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
Because of the urgent need for, and substantial difficulty in,
renumbering IP networks, the PIER working group is compiling a series
of documents to assist sites in their renumbering efforts. The
intent of these documents is to provide both educational and
practical information to the Internet community. To this end the
working group is soliciting information from organizations that
already have gone through, or are in the process of going through,
renumbering efforts. Case studies, tools, and lists of applications
that require special attention are sought.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Renumbering Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Information on Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Application Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 1]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
1. Introduction
There are immediate and increasingly severe requirements to renumber
both small and large-scale networks. The Procedures for
Internet/Enterprise Renumbering (PIER) working group in the IETF
urgently requests specific input for producing concrete guidance for
the renumbering task as quickly as possible. As part of collecting
such information, the PIER working group therefore is soliciting
input from people and organizations with experience in changing the
IP addresses of enterprise networks or in making major changes in the
subnetting of existing networks. We are especially interested in
actual case studies -- that is, accounts describing what was actually
done to renumber one or more networks. Information is also solicited
on specific tools used in the process, and on areas in which tools
were needed but not available. Because applications that use IP
addresses directly in their configuration or security mechanisms pose
specific difficulties and coordination issues for renumbering, a
catalogue of such applications is being compiled.
All interested parties are invited to submit material in any of these
areas:
A) Accounts of the experience of renumbering networks:
-- Retrospective reports on renumbering efforts.
-- Journals or running accounts of a renumbering effort, written
while the task is underway.
B) Information on tools to help renumbering:
-- Descriptions of tools used, whether commercial, freeware, or ad
hoc (such as perl scripts).
-- Descriptions of specific needs where a tool could clearly have
helped, but none was found.
C) Information on applications using embedded IP addresses:
-- Software applications that use embedded IP addresses for security
keys, authentication, or any other "inappropriate" purposes.
-- Hardware devices whose IP addresses are hardcoded into the
hardware design (and so may require extensive time lags to
retool).
-- Both software and hardware whose vendors are no longer in business
and that may require replacement or specialized solutions.
The focus of this solicitation is on experience with renumbering that
has been done or is now underway in IPv4 networks, and not on future
changes to protocols or environments that may eventually be useful.
We are especially concerned with the most common situation faced
today: single-homed networks that are not transit providers. However,
experience with renumbering more complex environments is also
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 2]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
welcome.
The information provided will be used as an information base from
which at least three documents will be composed: a document
summarizing the processes to follow when renumbering, a document
describing the available tools, and a document containing a list of
known applications requiring special attention when renumbering. The
information will also be available on the PIER home page,
http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier. More specific reports on renumbering
particular environments may also be produced in those cases where
enough information is received from the community.
Although our emphasis is on technical issues and responses, solidly
based advice on smoothing the human problems is also appreciated.
Political and cultural sensitivities, and handling them, are major
issues in the real world.
There is no requirement that a formal document be submitted, although
with the permission of the submitter, selected accounts of experience
in renumbering will be published by PIER as part of their planned
series of case studies. If you wish to have your account released as
a PIER case study, please follow the standard RFC format described in
RFC 1543, "Instructions to RFC Authors". (For convenience, these
formatting rules are given in Appendix A below.)
The people and organization(s) involved and the network(s) renumbered
need not be identified in any document made public by PIER: please
explicitly indicate if a submission should have its anonymity
protected.
The deadline for the submission of your information is May 15, 1996,
though early submission is encouraged. Any information, however
informally written, that can be submitted earlier, would be greatly
appreciated and will help shape the further work of the PIER group.
In particular, if you expect to submit a detailed write-up by May 15,
1996, please let us know as soon as possible.
Please send submissions, questions, or suggestions to the PIER
discussion list, pier@isi.edu.
To subscribe to the PIER discussion list, please send your request to
pier-request@isi.edu. Further information on PIER is available on the
PIER home page, http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier.
Mail may also be sent directly to the editors, without its appearing
on the PIER list, by sending to pier-solicit@bellcore.com.
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 3]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
2. Renumbering Experience
An account of a renumbering effort should provide enough concrete
information, based on actual experience, so that the reader can
understand exactly what was done. Broadly speaking, we anticipate two
styles of account:
i) Retrospective reports
Based on one or more renumbering efforts, recapitulate what was
done and what was learned in the effort. Such a report should
describe:
-- The environment being renumbered.
-- The planning undertaken.
-- What was done.
-- What worked.
-- What didn't (unanticipated issues, problems with planned
approaches).
In addition, the report would be even more useful if it also
addressed:
-- The reasons for taking the approach chosen.
-- Any alternative approaches that were rejected, and why.
-- What could have been done in advance to make the task easier.
-- Lessons learned: how would you do it next time?
It is hoped that individuals and organizations that have already
been through a renumbering effort could quickly look back over
their experiences, and capture their knowledge.
ii) Running accounts
Many people are in the midst of a renumbering effort, or are about
to embark on one in the next few months. If, in the midst of that
hectic task, one could write down a brief account or "diary" of
what actually happens, as it happens, such a report is likely to
capture the glitches and fixes of even the best-planned effort
more accurately than any retrospective.
Of course, these are only rough categories: any record of the
experience of renumbering or of information gained by such experience
can be a valuable contribution to PIER. When submitting accounts of
renumbering efforts, please attempt to be as articulate and concise
as possible.
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 4]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
3. Information on Tools
Information on the tools that were used in renumbering is valuable,
whether provided as a separate note or as part of an account of a
renumbering effort. We welcome comments, however detailed or brief,
on any tools that helped with renumbering, whether or not you intend
to produce an account of the entire renumbering effort.
Some areas in which tools may be used in renumbering include:
-- Identifying what needs to be changed in your network, such as
configuration files, hosts and servers with embedded or cached IP
addresses, DNS, access control lists (ACLs), firewalls, routers,
license servers, and other applications.
-- Identifying external factors (such as remote servers, routers, and
Internet registries) that need to be updated to accommodate your
new numbers.
-- Identifying dependencies between the different places where the
numbers must be updated.
-- Notifying external agents.
-- Generating the new information (such as routing, configuration,
and ACLs) required in order to carry out the updates.
-- Coordinating updates.
-- Making the updates.
-- Verifying the updates.
-- Trouble-shooting and debugging.
-- Maintaining network functionality.
-- Informing your users and other affected human beings (such as NOC
staff) of the changes.
The most useful tools are those that are, or can be, available to
other renumbering efforts. For a given tool, it would be helpful to
describe:
-- How to obtain it (if not a well-known tool).
-- What you used it for.
-- How you used it.
-- What its strengths and limitations are for these specific uses.
If a tool was created as part of the renumbering effort, a
description of exactly what it does should be included. (For example,
a script to check for IP addresses in configuration files on user
machines should be described in terms of just what it did to obtain
the list of machines, what files it looked for, and how it checked
them.)
Although the primary goal of this solicitation is to learn what tools
exist and are useful, we also value specific, experience-based
descriptions of ways in which tools could have helped even though
nothing was available during the renumbering to perform these
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 5]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
functions. Advisories on tools that appear to be useful but in
practice created further problems may also be considered, as
appropriate.
4. Application Information
Information on applications that require special attention when
renumbering are of particular interest, since specialized
applications are among the most difficult aspects of renumbering. It
typically requires special intervention with the vendor to provide
new security keys, new license addresses, new versions of
applications, or perhaps even new hardware or proms to change the
hardcoded IP addresses.
A list of any such applications that required "extra" efforts during
the renumbering process is valuable. Please include as much specific
information as possible, including but not limited to: application
name, version, platform, vendor, operating system, operating system
version, the steps taken to overcome the problem, and lead times
needed.
In particular, any applications that are no longer supported, or
whose vendor has ceased to do business, are extremely important since
these applications will likely be some of the more difficult issues a
renumbering effort will encounter. Any solutions to these types of
problems, including replacement applications and proprietary
solutions, are also sought.
5. Security Considerations
This RFC raises no security issues, although accounts of renumbering
are encouraged to describe any security issues encountered, any tools
that helped identify or resolve the issues, and the actions taken to
address them. Submissions should give serious consideration to the
content and context of issues regarding security.
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 6]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
6. Authors' Addresses
Howard C. Berkowitz
PSC International
8260 Greensboro Drive, Suite 330
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 998-5819
Fax: (703) 998-5058
EMail: hcb@clark.net
Paul Ferguson
cisco Systems, Inc.
1835 Alexander Bell Drive
Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
Phone: (703) 716-9538
Fax: (703) 716-9538
EMail: pferguso@cisco.com
Will E. Leland
Room 1A-228B
Bellcore
445 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960-6438
Phone: (201) 829-4376
Fax: (201) 829-2504
EMail: wel@bellcore.com
Philip J. Nesser II
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
16015 84th Ave. NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Phone: (206) 488-6268
EMail: pjnesser@rocket.com
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 7]
RFC 1916 Enterprise Renumbering Solicitation February 1996
Appendix A - Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543)
Note: there are a set of NROFF formatting macros for the following
format. Please contact pier-solicit@bellcore.com if you would like
to get a copy.
3a. ASCII Format Rules
The character codes are ASCII.
Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a
line by itself.
Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage
return and line feed.
No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.
These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers, footers,
page numbers, or left side indenting.
Do not fill the text with extra spaces to provide a straight right
margin.
Do not do hyphenation of words at the right margin.
Do not use footnotes. If such notes are necessary, put them at the
end of a section, or at the end of the document.
Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line between
paragraphs.
Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers on
which various sections fall will likely change with reformatting.
Thus cross references in the text by section number usually are
easier to keep consistent than cross references by page number.
Berkowitz, et al Informational [Page 8]