RE: Comments on the LIR WG and its role
- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 03:30:58 -0500
- Encoding: 139 TEXT
Are the "highly competitive" LIRs "for profit" or "non profit" ?
Do you anticipate ARIN following RIPE and getting
into the TLD business ?
Also, do companies come to RIPE or the LIRs to obtain
address blocks to avoid other registries ?
On Friday, May 15, 1998 2:21 AM, Mike Norris[SMTP:Mike.Norris@localhost] wrote:
@
@Local IRs are unusual entities. Their function as such is
@not their primary raison d'etre. They are not in business
@to allocate arcane numbers. Rather they provide, in a
@highly competitive market, a growing spectrum of Internet
@services. Part of their business is to assign IP addresses
@in such a way as to maintain global connectivity and routability
@within the ever expanding Internet. In this sense, we can
@call them local IRs. Here they must work with other local IRs,
@who happen to be their competitors as ISPs, and with the
@regional registry, in order to ensure interoperability and
@equity.
@
@LIR WG and the RIPE NCC
@-----------------------
@The LIR WG is part of the framework that promotes this
@necessary collaboration. The other important part is the
@RIPE NCC, in its capacity as the European regional registry.
@The separate identities of the WG and the NCC mirrors their
@different roles in determining policy and implementing it.
@At the same time, a close relationship between the two can
@lead to informed decisions and a responsive operation of
@policy.
@
@The relationship has evolved over time as both the RIPE NCC
@and local IRs have changed. The recent incorporation of RIPE
@NCC has helped to formalise the relationship. The NCC has
@always been sensitive to the needs of RIPE members. The change
@has been that there is now a legal basis for ISPs both supporting
@and having a say in the governance of the NCC. A subtle change
@perhaps, but one that ensures a measure of stability in the
@functioning of the NCC and the delivery of its services, such as
@that of regional IP registrar.
@
@This bottom-up model, largely developed in RIPE, is now being
@paralleled in other regions. It is a good example of the
@industry, though highly competitive, regulating itself. Indeed,
@the model may be applied at the global level, if recent proposals
@for the opening up and restructuring of IANA functions are to
@follow their logical course.
@
@There may be a need to extend the model in the other direction.
@Some large local IRs are allocating address space to their
@customers and devolving to them the task of assigning the
@addresses. With generic procedures already in place, it should
@be possible to extend the chain of responsibility and accountability
@to such sub-local IRs.
@
@Policy and Procedures
@---------------------
@While not cast in stone, "Title" (ripe-???) provides a solid
@basis for the orderly development of the Internet in Europe.
@That it was developed by consensus and is a public document
@adds to its strength. Of course it will need continual
@revision and the LIR WG must respond to genuine needs in a
@timely yet deliberate fashion.
@
@I am not saying that this is the end of history and that the
@issue of IP address allocation has been settled forever. But
@at least there should be no room for fear, uncertainty or doubt
@about the manner in which IP numbers are allocated and applied.
@
@It may be that the battle is being waged on new territory.
@We have seen the debate in Europe and more widely over the
@name space and its various generic and national subsets.
@Indeed, one of RIPE's newest working groups is devoting a
@lot of effort to the issues of name registration.
@
@While the allocation of IP addresses continues apace, the
@big demand is for names to be registered on the Internet.
@We can see the trend in Europe from the host count conducted
@by the RIPE NCC since 1992. There has been a consistent
@and exponential growth in the number of hosts (corresponding
@to IP addresses). Of late, however, there has been an even
@more spectacular growth in the number of SOA records
@(corresponding to zone files or domain names).
@
@Up until just three years, the ratio of hosts to SOA records
@hovered up and down in the low 70s. Since then, however, it
@has consistently dropped every month, and now stands at a value
@of 12. We are asymtpotically approaching a position of parity
@between host and domains. Just imagine the contention for domain
@names, and the strain that will put on a registry structure that
@at present is virtually flat.
@
@Looking ahead
@-------------
@In addition to their current task of managing IP address
@space, local IRs face the challenge of migration to IPv6.
@We hope to learn directly about this at RIPE 30, as well
@as paying close attention to the work of the IPv6 WG.
@For the steady state of IPv6, new policies, procedures,
@tools and training materials will have to be prepared. The
@transition itself requires careful coordination between
@LIRs and with the NCC and the IPv6 WG.
@
@Right now, IPv4 registration will proceed, as will the
@need for consistency and quality in the operation of the
@procedures. The audit program of the NCC will help here,
@as will the LIR WG's promotion of high standards in the
@assignment and use of IP addresses.
@
@There will continue to be challenges and concerns for local
@IRs in their management of IP addresses on behalf of their
@clients. The use of private addresses, firewalls, NAT,
@intranets and other techniques will change our model of
@the Internet and we must learn to understand their effects.
@Address aggregation is still a high priority, yet we must
@be sensitive to the need for connectivity in a highly
@volatile market.
@
@These are but some of the tasks facing the Local IR working
@group. Perhaps we could discuss this at RIPE 30 and on the
@list.
@
@Regards.
@
@Mike Norris
@
@
@
@
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net
IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race
AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM
