Re:ripe-159 changes
- Date: 12 Sep 1998 09:46:01 -0000
- Organisation: UUNET, A Worldcom Company
Hello all,
At the last RIPE Meeting we were asked to make a change in the policy on
allocations that an allocation only needs to be 80% used up instead
of 90% before receiving a new one. After discussing it with the other
Regional Registries, we have decided to go ahead with this change. This means
that the Policies and Procedures document currently ripe-159 needs to be
updated.
At the same time Ive taken the opportunity to also include a few new sections
in the document on practices that are already in place and should be
mentioned. Below Ive included all the new/changed sections. Though theres
also a few minor changes, mainly in documents/rfcs that have changed Please
send us any comments you may have, before we publish the final document.
By the way, there was a discussion on this list and the database working group
mailing list a few weeks about version numbers of RIPE documents. As a result
of that weve decided to start referencing RIPE documents by their titles and
not their numbers on the web site and in other documents. The documents will
still have a ripe-xxx number, so that you can see what the latest version is,
but all references will be to the title instead of the number. Therefore,
ripe-159 will changed to ripe-185, but the web site link will be to the
document title once its officially published.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav
Registration Services
Manager
RIPE NCC
Here is the list of major changes:
Changed section 4.3 Further Allocations as decided at RIPE meeting:
> To obtain a new allocation, a Local IR should submit
> a request to the RIPE NCC which includes a complete
> list of the assignments made from their last alloca-
> tion, however the RIPE NCC will check all the pre-
> vious allocations for 80% usage as well.
Changed section 6.2 Establishing a New Registry shortened it and mainly
pointed to ripe-160 so that the procedure is only documented in one place and
changes can be made more easily.
> 6.2. Establishing a New Registry
>
> A local IR is established after submitting a request
> to the RIPE NCC which includes assurances that the
> relevant rules and guidelines defined in this and
> related documents are known and a commitment that
> they will be followed. The process of setting up a
> new registry is explained in detail in Guidelines
> for Setting up a Local Internet Registry currently
> ripe-160 [Caslav98a].
Added under section 6.4 Registry Operations:
> External Quality Assurance
>
> In order to promote consistent and fair application
> of assignment criteria with regard to conservation
> and registration of address space and aggregation of
> routing information, the RIPE NCC has started an
> activity of consistency checking of registry data
> and auditing of registries. To ensure that reg-
> istries are following the assignment criteria, and
> entering assignments into the database correctly,
> the RIPE NCC may contact a registry to ask for docu-
> mentation or more information about certain requests
> or database entries. If the NCC finds problems, it
> will work with the registry to correct these, and
> may take disciplinary action, such as lowering the
> registrys Assignment Window. This activity is
> described in-depth in RIPE NCC Consistency & Audit-
> ing Activity currently ripe-170 [Caslav97a].
Added under same section:
> Distribution Robot
>
> The RIPE NCC uses an automatic robot to distribute
> all messages sent to hostmaster@localhost and to do
> syntax checking on IP address space requests. For
> help on interacting with the robot, please see the
> RIPE NCC web site at:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/lir/services/status.html
Added new section 6.5 that allocations cant be transfered without RIPE NCC
permission is already mentioned elsewhere, but I wanted a separate section to
specifically point this out- weve had a few cases lately of registries
changing owners without telling us:
> 6.5. When a Registry Changes Ownership
>
> If a Local Internet Registry changes ownership
> because it is sold, or merges with another com-
> pany, the RIPE NCC should be contacted about the
> change in ownership. Depending on the case, the RIPE
> NCC may need to request a new service agreement from
> the new owners. Also, if all of the contact persons
> who will be sending requests have changed, the NCC
> may lower the assignment window of the registry
> until the new contacts are up-to-date on the RIPE
> NCC procedures and policies.
>
> Sometimes a registry is taken over or merged with
> another, already existing registry. The RIPE NCC
> needs to be notified in this case as well. The reg-
> istries in question will need to discuss with the
> NCC what will be done with the allocations in case
> one of the registries is closing. An allocation can-
> not be transfered from one registry to another or
> to a non-registry without contacting the RIPE NCC
> first. A registry cannot have more than one open
> less than 80% used up allocation, so sometimes
> transfering all allocations is not possible. Please
> discuss these issues with hostmaster@localhost.
And here is the entire document itself.
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
European Internet Registry
Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
Document ID: ripe-185
Date Published: July 23, 1998
Obsoletes: ripe-104, ripe-105, ripe-136, ripe-140, ripe-159
ABSTRACT
The distribution of IP address space
follows the hierarchical scheme described
in RFC 1466 [Gerich93a]. For Europe and
parts of the surrounding area address
space is allocated by IANA to the RIPE NCC
which acts as a regional Internet reg-
istry. Address space is allocated by the
RIPE NCC to Local Internet Registries
IRs, who assign it to to end users. In
this document, we describe the policies
and procedures associated with address
space management that must be followed by
local IRs. Moreover, we present a number
of services available to local IRs to sim-
plify the tasks associated with address
space management.
1. Scope
This document describes the European Internet reg-
istry system for the distribution of globally unique
Internet address space and its operation. Particu-
larly it describes the rules and guidelines govern-
ing the distribution of this address space. The
rules set forth in this document are binding for all
address space allocated and assigned via the RIPE
NCC.
This document does not describe private Internet
address space and multicast address space. This
document does not describe local additions to the
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 1
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
European guidelines. While providing an overview
about the global Internet registry system this docu-
ment does not describe allocation and assignment
rules used by other regional registries.
This document has been produced by the RIPE Local
Internet Registry LIR Working Group with the help
of an editing committee consisting of:
P. Caslav RIPE NCC
S. Dolderer DE NIC
D. Karrenberg RIPE NCC
M. Kuehne RIPE NCC
M. Norris HEANET
C. Orange RIPE NCC
W. Woeber ACONET
J. Zsako Banknet
H.P. Holen Schibsted Nett
1.1. Overview
The main body of this document comprises eight sec-
tions, with content as follows.
Section 2 Internet Address Space and the Internet
Registry System defines different types of IP
address space and their purposes. It explains the
goals used in assigning such addresses and outlines
the hierarchical nature of the Internet Registry
system used to achieve these goals. The important
distinction between Provider Aggregatable and
Provider Independent address space is also covered.
Section 3 Address Space Assignment Procedures
describes the procedures to be followed by European
IP registries when assigning IP addresses to users.
The importance of documentation is stressed, while
the various elements of information required are
explained in detail. Next, the criteria and stan-
dards of evaluation are dealt with. Finally, the
actual assignment of address space, of various
kinds, is described, as are the accompanying steps
which a registry must take.
Section 4 Rules and Guidelines for Allocations
explains how the RIPE NCC allocates IP address space
to registries in an efficient and equitable manner
and how the status and nature of such allocations
are made publicly available in the RIPE database.
Section 5 DNS and Reverse Address Mapping docu-
ments the role of the RIPE NCC in providing reverse
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 2
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
delegation, and explains how registries can manage
subsidiary reverse delegation of assigned address
space.
Section 6 Operating a Local Internet Registry
describes a number of services offered by the RIPE
NCC to facilitate the uniform implementation of the
policies outlined in this document, and outlines
procedures associated with IP registration services
which Local IRs are expected to follow.
Section 7 AS Number Assignment Policies and Proce-
dures explains the procedures to be followed by
European IP registries when requesting an autonomous
system number.
Section 8 Interdomain Exterior Routing Considera-
tions discusses interdomain routing issues such as
originating routing information; propagating routing
announcements; aggregation and registering routes in
the database and their role in defining the poli-
cies regarding address space distribution described
in this document.
We conclude with a glossary in which the key terms
used in this document are defined.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 3
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
2. Internet Address Space and the Internet Registry System
2.1. Types of IP Addresses
IP addresses for the purposes of this document are
32-bit binary numbers used as addresses in the IPv4
protocols. There are three main types of IP
addresses
Public Addresses
The public IP addresses make up the Internet
address space. They are assigned to be glob-
ally unique according to the goals described in
Section 2.2. The main purpose of this address
space is to allow communication using IPv4 over
the Internet. A secondary purpose is to allow
communication using IPv4 over interconnected
private internets. One can currently distin-
guish two kinds of public addresses: provider
independent PI and provider aggregatable PA
addresses; see Section 2.4 for more details.
More information about PI and PA address space
can also be found in ripe-127 [ Karren-
berg95a].
Private Addresses
Some address ranges have been set aside for the
operation of private networks using IP. Anyone
can use these addresses in their private net-
works without any registration or coordination.
Hosts using these addresses can not be reached
from the Internet. For a thorough description
of private address space, please refer to RFC
1918 [Rekhter96b].
Special and Reserved Addresses
There are a number of address ranges reserved
for applications like multicasting. These are
described elsewhere cf RFC 1112 [Deering89a]
and are beyond the scope of this document.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 4
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
2.2. Goals of Public Address Space Distribution
In the remainder of this document, we are primarily
concerned with the management of public Internet
address space, as defined in the previous section.
Every assignment of Internet addresses must guaran-
tee that the following restriction is met.
Uniqueness
Each public Internet address worldwide must be
unique.
This is an absolute requirement which guaran-
tees that every host on the Internet can be
uniquely identified.
In addition to the uniqueness requirement, pub-
lic Internet address space assignments should
be made with the following three goals in mind.
Aggregation
The distribution of public Internet addresses
in a hierarchical manner, permitting the aggre-
gation of routing information. This is neces-
sary to ensure proper operation of Internet
routing. This goal could also be called
Routability.
Conservation
The fair distribution of public Internet
address space according to the operational
needs of the end users operating networks using
this address space. In order to maximize the
lifetime of the public Internet address space
resource, addresses must be distributed accord-
ing to need, and stockpiling must be prevented.
Registration
The provision of a public registry documenting
address space allocation and assignment. This
is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to pro-
vide information for Internet trouble shooting
at all levels.
It is in the interest of the Internet community as a
whole that these goals are pursued. It is worth
noting that Conservation and Aggregation are
often conflicting goals, and therefore that each
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 5
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
assignment must be evaluated carefully. Moreover,
the above goals may occasionally be in conflict with
the interests of individual end users or Internet
service providers. Careful analysis and judgement
are necessary in each individual case to find an
appropriate compromise. The rules and guidelines in
this document are intended to help Internet reg-
istries and end users in their search for good com-
promises.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 6
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
2.3. The Internet Registry System
The Internet Registry system has been established to
achieve the goals stated in Section 2.2. It con-
sists of hierarchically organized Internet Reg-
istries IRs. Address space is typically assigned
to end users by Local IRs. The address space
assigned is taken from that allocated to the Local
IR by the Regional IR. End users are those organi-
zations operating networks in which the address
space is used. The address space may, however, be
requested by a consultant requester acting on
behalf of the end user. Local IRs are typically
operated by Internet Service Providers ISPs.
Local IRs hold allocations of address space for
assignment to end users. Assigned address space is
actually used to operate networks, whereas allocated
address space is held by IRs for future assignments
to end users. To achieve both the conservation and
aggregation goals, only IRs can hold allocations of
address space.
IANA
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has author-
ity over all number spaces used in the Internet.
This includes IP address space. IANA allocates pub-
lic Internet address space to Regional IRs according
to their established needs.
Regional IRs
Regional IRs operate in large geopolitical regions
such as continents. To date, three Regional IRs have
been established, namely the ARIN serving North
America, the APNIC serving the Asian Pacific region,
and the RIPE NCC serving Europe and surrounding
areas. Since these do not cover all geographical
areas, regional IRs also serve areas around their
core service areas. The number of Regional IRs is
expected to remain small.
Regional IRs are established under the Authority of
IANA. This requires consensus within the Internet
community of the region. In particular, the ISPs in
the region under consideration should be involved in
the process. The duties of a regional IR include the
coordination and representation of the Local IRs in
its region.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 7
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
Local IRs
Local IRs are established under the authority of a
Regional IR. Local IRs are typically operated by
ISPs and serve the customers of those ISPs as well
as the customers of smaller ISPs who are connected
to the rest of the Internet through the larger ISP.
Other organizations such as large international
Enterprises can also operate Local IRs.
Much of this document is concerned with the respon-
sibility of the Local IR in the assignment process.
In some cases, the Local IR assigning the address
space is not run by the ISP that will provide con-
nectivity. It is important to note that maintenance
of the administrative information regarding the
assigned address space is the responsibility of the
IR that makes the assignment, and not of the ISP
providing the connectivity. Furthermore, only IRs
can hold address allocations.
End-Users
Strictly speaking end users are not part of the IR
system. They do, however, play an important role
with respect to the goals defined above. In order to
achieve the conservation goal, for example, end
users should plan their networks to use a minimum
amount of address space. They must document their
addressing and deployment plans to the IR and fur-
nish any additional information required by the IR
for making assignment decisions. To achieve the
aggregation goal, an end user should choose an
appropriate Local IR. End users should be aware that
changing ISPs may require replacing addresses in
their networks. Finally end users must provide and
update registration data for the address space
assigned to them.
Requesters
In addition to these key players in the Internet
Registry System, there are often consultants who
setup and manage networks for end users. The consul-
tants may be the people actually submitting a
request for address space to an IR on behalf of an
end user. We refer to the person making the request
for an end user as a requester, whether that person
is employed by the organization, or is simply acting
on behalf of the organization with respect to the
address space request.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 8
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
The European IR System
For Europe, the Internet Registry System hierarchy
consists of the following entities from the top
down: IANA, the RIPE NCC, and Local IRs.
2.4. Provider Independent vs Provider Aggregatable Addresses
Provider Aggregatable Address Space
Local IRs operated by Internet service providers are
allocated Provider Aggregatable PA address space
which they assign to their end users. This is done
in such a way that routing information for many end
users of an ISP can be aggregated on the borders of
the providers routing domain. This keeps the num-
ber of routes and state changes in the interdomain
routing system between providers at an acceptable
level. The cost of propagating a relatively small
number of aggregated routes is much lower than that
of propagating each end users individual routes
throughout the entire interdomain routing system.
If an end user changes service providers, their PA
address space will have to be replaced. As a conse-
quence, all hosts and routers at the end users
organization will have to be reconfigured. The end
user will need to obtain a new address space assign-
ment, and return the previously assigned address
space. To ensure the address space is properly
returned, a clear, preferably contractual, under-
standing is needed between the Local IR and the end
user. The agreement should state that the assignment
of the address space becomes invalid when the
provider no longer provides Internet connectivity to
the end user or shortly thereafter.
The goal of this arrangement is to minimize the load
on the interdomain routing system. If the end user
continued to use PA address space obtained from
their previous service provider when connecting to
another service provider, their routing information
could not be aggregated and would have to be propa-
gated separately throughout the whole interdomain
routing system.
Provider Independent Address Space
In contrast to PA address space, PI address space
can remain assigned to its user as long as the
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 9
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
criteria for the original assignment are met. The
duration of the assignment is independent of the use
of a particular providers services. The apparent
advantage of PI address space is that a users hosts
and routers need not be reconfigured if the user
decides to change service providers. However, PI
addresses are expensive to route because no use can
be made of aggregation. All early Internet address
space assignments were provider independent. Many
assignments made by Local IRs are also formally
provider independent due to a lack of prior agree-
ments between ISP and the end user that the assign-
ment will be terminated when the service is.
Validity of assignment
Assignments of any kind of address space are valid
as long as the original criteria on which the
assignment was based are still valid. If an assign-
ment is made for a specific purpose and the purpose
no longer exists, then the assignment is no longer
valid. If an assignment is based on information that
turns out to be invalid so is the assignment.
____________________________________________________
ripe-185.txt Page 10
European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures
RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group
____________________________________________________
3. Address Space Assignment Procedures
3.1. Introduction
In this section, we describe the procedures to be
followed by Local IRs when assigning address space
to their users. We start with a description of the
information to be gathered from the user. The pur-
pose of the information gathering is twofold. First,
the information is required to make address assign-
ment decisions, with respect to the aggregation and
conservation goals. Second, the information is
required for registration purposes.
We go on to describe how this information should be
evaluated to make appropriate assignments, and
introduce additional considerations that may be
essential in the assignment decision. Finally we
specify the procedures to be followed in the assign-
ment process.
Before going into the factors in the assignment pro-
cess, we start with some general background informa-
tion and policies that determine the information to
be gathered, and the procedures to be followed.
Address space is assigned by IRs to end users who
use it to operate the specific networks described in
an address space request. IRs guarantee that no
other end user will be assigned the same address
space during the validity of the assignment. An
assignment is valid as long as the criteria on which
it is based remain valid.
In accordance with the conservation goal, end users
are not permitted to reserve address space. Evalua-
tion of IP address space requests must be based on
the documentation provided for the following 24
months, as specified in the current address space
usage template and in the addressing plan as
described in the next section. The amount of address
space assigned must be justified by this documenta-
tion. This means that address space assigned in the
past should be used to meet the current request if
possible. Once an organisation has used its
assigned address space, it can request
