FAQs on Internet Resource Management

November 2004

These FAQs relate specifically to the issues of Internet resource management that are specific to the response to an ITU-TSB memorandum entitled "ITU and Internet Governance". This memorandum includes a proposal to change IP address distribution.

The Number Resource Organization (NRO), on behalf of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), has prepared a response to this memorandum.

A summary of this response is available at:
http://www.nro.net/documents/nro18.html

The full text of this response is available at:
http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html

A list of RIPE NCC Members supporting the NRO response is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/info/internet-management/support.html

Q: What’s all this about?

A: A proposal has been made to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based on national authorities. This could have a serious impact on RIPE NCC Members, Internet operators and the global Internet community at large.

This proposal, if adopted, would disrupt the stable, proven mechanisms for IP address space distribution on which the success of the Internet has been founded and on which the global Internet community relies for future operational stability and continued growth.

Q: What’s the problem with the proposal in the memorandum?

A: Rather than addressing the diversity of requirements of the global Internet community or the body of experience already gained in the operation of the global IP address distribution function, the memorandum proposes a uniform model of Internet address distribution as a public sector activity within autonomous national boundaries.

The memorandum ignores any consideration of the technical impacts of its proposal on the global Internet (specifically on address space routability) and simply suggests that considerations of “details and constraints, in particular issues related to routing table size” should be postponed until an unspecified time in the future.

Q: Why do we need to get involved?

A: "Internet Governance" is a hot topic now. World summits devote a lot of their time to it. The Regional Internet Registry members and others in the Internet community need to make their views about this issue known. Without their support being *visible* and *explicit* the bottom-up, consensus based model on which the success of the Internet has been founded may be replaced by the top-down bureaucracy of "Internet Governance".

A list of RIPE NCC Members supporting the NRO response is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/info/internet-management/support.html

Q: How can I show support for the Regional Internet Registries?

A: RIPE NCC Members can log in to the LIR Portal and tick the support box.
If you do not have an LIR Portal account, please e-mail your expression of support to <contact@ripe.net>.

Expressions of support from RIPE NCC Members is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/info/internet-management/support.html

An e-mail archive of expressions of support is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/im-support/

ITU-TSB Members can also contact your ITU member state representative to voice your concerns.

Q: Aren't you just defending your monopoly and your way of doing things?

A: Yes we are. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are not-for-profit membership associations that provide Internet number resource distribution to their members.
The members expect this service from their RIR. The RIRs do not do this for their own sake but for their membership.

The RIR membership and regional community participate in the bottom-up policy development processes to determine Internet number resource distribution policies for their region. The RIRs implement these policies on behalf of their members and the Internet community.

The RIRs, acting in concert through the Number Resource Organization, continue to interface with ICANN and other parties to protect the unallocated Internet number resource pool and to promote the bottom-up policy development process of the regional Internet communities.

Q: Is it true that the Internet is not a level playing field?

A: Yes the Internet playing field is not level on a global scale, but Internet number resource distribution is not part of this problem. On the contrary, Internet number resource distribution is one of the few successes in the area of Internet resource management.

Q: But isn’t it true that the MIT/Stanford has more IPv4 address space than all of China?

A: This was true in the past, but not anymore. It was also true that MIT had more address space than all of Europe at one point.

The reasons for this are largely historical. During the 1980s and early 1990s, early adopters of the Internet were able to receive IPv4 address space under the allocation principles that existed at the time. These early adopter organisations were allocated and often still hold many more addresses than they would be allocated under present allocation principles, placing them in a relatively advantaged position. This enduring imbalance is not a result of the current principles but rather a reflection that different allocation principles were in place in the past. Those principles reflected certain technological constraints of the time, and assumptions about the function and future of the Internet itself, which together promoted a relatively lax approach to address consumption.

Fortunately, technology has improved since the early days of the Internet, as have the systems under which addresses are allocated. Indeed, today’s Regional Internet Registry system was proposed in 1992 specifically to address the administrative problems evident at that time, and is widely recognised as a successful solution.

Q: Are we running out of IPv4 address space?

A: IPv4 address space is not scarce. The best available projections, based on the past allocation rates, indicate that the pool of unassigned IPv4 addresses may last until 2040.

More information about the status of IPv4 address space is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/info/info-services/ipv4/index.html

Q: But aren’t late adopters of the Internet disadvantaged when it comes to getting IPv4 address space?

A: No. Today, it is clear that sufficient IPv4 addresses are available to be allocated on a fair and equal basis to all users for many years to come. Through the current system of IP address administration, IP addresses are allocated according to need wherever that need is demonstrated, in accordance with well-known allocation principles. The distribution of this global resource is organised in an efficient and very widely accepted manner.

When IPv4 address space finally "runs out" this will occur at a global level. Each region will have a small pool of addresses left to allocate. Addresses are distributed in a co-ordinated fashion from one single global pool. The pool is not pre-allocated to different countries or regions. The claim that some countries or regions will be first to lose out is simply untrue.

Q: Are newcomers/late entrants to the Internet disenfranchised?

A: This is not the case in the area of Internet number resource distribution. The current policies are fair, equitable and consensus-based and are implemented successfully.

The development and execution of these address allocation policies are organised on a regional level by five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): AfriNIC, serving Africa; APNIC, serving the Asia-Pacific region; ARIN, serving Northern America, and parts of the Caribbean; LACNIC, serving Latin America and portions of the Caribbean; and the RIPE NCC, serving Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia.

These RIRs are funded and governed by over 8,000 organisations worldwide, representing the users of the Internet number resources. Allocation policies and procedures are developed in regional fora that are open not only to the RIR members, but to all interested parties including Government.

This long standing, open policy-making structure has been implemented since the early 1990s and has been a tremendous success. The fairness and efficiency of Internet number distribution is very widely recognised, as is the openness and accessibility of the associated allocation policies. In particular this structure has demonstrated repeatedly that it can adapt quickly to the rapid changes that take place in the Internet environment.

Q: But shouldn’t we prevent unfairness in IP address space distribution, especially when it comes to IPv6?

A: There is no unfairness in IP address space distribution. IPv6 address distribution has been organised on a global scale by the regional registries from the start. Policies are decided in open fora in a transparent way and implemented by the Regional Internet Registries.

Q: Won’t an alternative distribution system for IPv6 promote healthy competition?

A: IP addresses, which are useful because of their uniqueness and require global co-ordination, would be disrupted, not aided, by competition. While competition is a good mechanism in many areas, it is hard to see how different systems can compete meaningfully in the distribution of a global resource.

Q: Where can I find more information about this?

A: More information is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/info/internet-management/index.html