1 / 12

Automatic Configuration of IP Networks and Routers

Automatic Configuration of IP Networks and Routers. Kenji Hori, Kiyohito Yoshihara , and Hiroki Horiuchi KDDI R&D Laboratories Inc. 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka-Shi Saitama 356-8502, Japan TEL: +81 49 278 7651 FAX: +81 49 278 7510 {hori, yosshy, hr-horiuchi}@kddilabs.jp. Introduction.

tara
Download Presentation

Automatic Configuration of IP Networks and Routers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Automatic Configuration of IP Networks and Routers Kenji Hori, Kiyohito Yoshihara, and Hiroki Horiuchi KDDI R&D Laboratories Inc. 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka-Shi Saitama 356-8502, Japan TEL: +81 49 278 7651 FAX: +81 49 278 7510 {hori, yosshy, hr-horiuchi}@kddilabs.jp

  2. Introduction • Techniques for automatic configuration of IP networks and routers are desirable • The presence of a highly skilled user like a network operator cannot be assumed. • The deployment of automatically configurable network would be cost-effective in terms of efficient network operation and management. • Requirements for automatic configuration are identified, comparing existing proposals • ARCP is promising; however, the current version has problems to be solved: • An address management solution is not provided explicitly. • A DHCP server cannot provide anappropriate address of thedefault gateway. • Operations for discovering addition/deletion of routers(“Peer Discovery”) and for adapting router settings to network changes(“Renumbering”) can cause unstable repetitive changes of address. • “Renumbering” operations can evaporate the addresses of default gateways. • In this paper: • We identifyrequirements for an automatic configuration protocol. • We compare existing proposals with our requirements, showing that ARCP is the closest to satisfy our requirements. • We address the above problems in detail, and propose solutions. • We describe works in progress and show preliminary simulation results.

  3. Requirements and comparison of existing proposals Table 1. Comparison of existing proposals

  4. Overview of ARCP (1) Fig.1: Basic operation of ARCP

  5. Overview of ARCP (2) Fig.2: Peer discovery and Renumbering operations

  6. Solution (1): All addresses are managed originally by a DHCP server. Problem (1): Address management is not explicitly provided. Fig.4: Address assignment by solution S2 Fig.3: Address assignment by solution S1 Fig.5: Address management solution for ARCP (S2)

  7. Solution (2): ARCP routers replace values of DHCP “router” option field. Problem (2): DHCP server cannot provide addresses of default gateways. Fig.6: An example of problem and solution S1 Fig.7: An Example of solution S2

  8. Solution (3): The ARCP server presets static priority for each subnet. Problem (3): “Peer Discovery” and “Renumbering” operations can cause repetitive address changes. Fig.9: Solution with static priority method Fig.8: Problem of repeating Renumbering operation

  9. Solution (4): ARCP routers suspends actual Renumbering operation until downstreamARCP routers are configured. Problem (4): “Renumbering” operations can evaporate default gateway address. Fig.10: Problem of evaporatingdefault gateway address Fig.11: Solution with prohibition of actual Renumbering operation

  10. Simulation example of ARCP Fig.13: An example network Time of completion of accommodation[sec] Number of routers (N) Fig.14: Results with example network shown in Fig.13

  11. Conclusions • In this paper: • Requirements for automatic configuration of IP networks and routers are identified first. • Comparative study on existing proposals is presented next, which shows that ARCP under standardization by IETF is the closest to satisfy requirements. • We examine a basic operation of ARCP in detail. • We address four problems and propose solutions. • In order to evaluate proposed solutions, we are developing a simulator. The work is in progress, and we present preliminary simulation results. • Future work: • Comparative simulation study of proposed solutions and standardized ARCP • Development of: • Advanced decision method of subnet selection priority in “Renumbering” operation • Adaptive and dynamic subnet resizing (variable prefix length) method • Extension for operation on IPv6 and IPv6-IPv4 mixed networks. • Hybrid method combined with other proposals • Implementation of proposed solutions and evaluation in operational networks

  12. Reference [1] D. Thaler and C. Huitema, “Multi-link Subnet Support in IPv6”, http://www.ietf.org/internet- drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt, Jun. 2002. [2] J. Linton, “Automatic Router Configuration Protocol”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-linton- arcp-00.txt, Oct. 2002. [3] J. Linton and G. Chelius, “Zerouter Protocol Requirements”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- linton-zerouter-requirements-00.txt, Dec. 2002. [4] A. White and A. Williams, “Zero-Configuration Subnet Prefix Allocation Using UIAP”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-zeroconf-subnet-alloc-01.txt, Oct. 2002. [5] G. Chelius, E. Fleury and L. Toutain, “Using OSPFv3 for IPv6 router autoconfiguration”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chelius-router-autoconf-00.txt, Jun. 2002. [6] O. Troan and R. Droms, “IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt, Mar. 2003. [7] B. Haberman and J. Martin, “Automatic Prefix Delegation Protocol for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)”, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02.txt, Feb. 2002. [8] N. Lutchansky, “IPv6 Router Advertisement Prefix Delegation Option”, http://www.ietf.org/internet- drafts/draft-lutchann-ipv6-delegate-option-01.txt, Feb. 2002. [9] http://internet.motlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/zerouter/ [10] http://www.opnet.com/.

More Related