Re: A Question
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:59:42 +0100
Dear all,
Thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. We have seen
some good advice. This is our contribution to clarify the policy.
Firstly, end users are not restricted by the number of ISPs they
connect to as long as the IP address space they use is for different
purposes. It has been correctly pointed out that end users can and do
apply to a 2nd provider for an additional connection for whatever
reasons (i.e. load balancing) so they can apply to use addresses from
this 2nd provider for these purposes.
However, should an end user migrate from one LIR to another we would
expect them to return their old assignment. If the new LIR has no
assignment-window (AW) the request will have to be sent to us for our
evaluation. We would expect the current address space to be documented
in the Current Usage Template, plus comments on the changes in the
network with the new LIR.
But remember to write contracts with your customers. Use the
paragraphs from ripe-127, irrespective of the type of address space
you are assigning (PA/PI). At end of the day LIRs have different
approaches to deal with different situations and that is their
business.
Here are the relevant sections of the European Internet Registry
Policies and Procedures (RIPE-185) and our emphasis on important
sentences :
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html
3.5.Replacing IP Addresses
[..]
3.5.Replacing IP Addresses
While the procedures for numbering and renumbering hosts in an IP
network are becoming less troublesome, ASKING OR FORCING END USERS TO
RENUMBER IS SOMETIMES PROBLEMATIC. The renumbering process usually
requires a considerable amount of time and effort both on the part of
the end users and on the part of the ISPs and Local IRs involved. In
some cases, there is a clear obligation to replace address space
assignments, and LOCAL IRs SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THEIR
CUSTOMERS IN THE PROCESS. A more general and very important case is
the (voluntary) replacement of PI address space which for historical
reasons has been randomly assigned and cannot be aggregated with other
PA assignments. Such replacements can play a key role in containing
the GROWTH OF ROUTING TABLES, and thus for the maintainability of the
Internet as a whole. Because the renumbering process is nontrivial,
the Internet Registry System as a whole must support the process as
far as possible.
During the period in which end users migrate individual services or
parts of their networks to the new address space, complications may
arise. In many cases, they may need to be CONNECTED TO MORE THAN ONE
ISP FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD, and sometimes ADDRESSES
FROM BOTH THE OLD RANGE(S) AND THE NEW MIGHT HAVE TO BE MANAGED AND
USED IN PARALLEL. With the goals of aggregation and conservation in
mind, as well as to minimise duplicate logistics, this period should
be kept as short as possible.
IP Address Space Replacement Procedures:
IN GENERAL, ADDRESS SPACE SHOULD BE REPLACED ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS. An
assignment of PA space to replace previously assigned PI space can be
made if the original assignment criteria are still met and if the
address space to be replaced is currently used for the end user's
network.
Only if a large percentage of the original assignment is not in use
(50% or more than 4096 addresses) will an end user be required to
submit the usual documentation to the new registry. This part of the
request is then treated like any other request for assignment of
additional addresses.
The address space to be replaced (the individual address ranges and
the total size) must be properly documented with the standard IP
address space assignment request forms. For address space that was
allocated by Local IRs established within the framework of the RIPE
NCC, a copy of the documentation is forwarded to the registry or
registries that assigned the address space being replaced. Before
assigning the new address space, an agreement (preferably contractual)
should be reached regarding the maximum period within which the
previously assigned addresses will be returned to the original
registry or to the regional registry for eventual reassignment. After
the renumbering is complete, the database must be updated to reflect
the changes.
Whenever a large amount of addresses are to be replaced (the
equivalent of a /20 or more) the Regional IR must be informed about
the intended replacement and the agreements on the maximum period of
parallel assignments. In complex cases, the Regional IR may decide to
provide guidance in the process of managing the address space
replacement.
In general A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE END USER TO
COMPLETE THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW ADDRESSES. RFC 2008 "Implications
of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing"
[Rekhter96a] recommends a grace period of at least 30 days, and no
longer than six months. For exceptional cases, where the end user
requests to keep both assignments for more than 6 months, approval
should be obtained for the proposed time frame from the RIPE NCC.
For those addresses that have not been assigned by a Local IR, or
which were assigned by an IR that has since closed, the Regional IR
will act in lieu of the original registry.
3.5.1.Multihomed Users
AN END USER MAY HAVE REASON TO OBTAIN CONNECTIVITY THROUGH MORE THAN
ONE SERVICE PROVIDER. IF SO, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN ADDRESS
SPACE ASSIGNMENTS FROM MORE THAN ONE IR TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE USER'S NETWORK. IN GENERAL, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH USERS
ACQUIRING ADDRESS SPACE AND SERVICE FROM MORE THAN ONE IR. THEIR
NETWORKS ARE THEN REFERRED TO AS MULTIHOMED.
Because users can be multihomed, IRs must be especially careful in
reviewing address space requests, and the corresponding CURRENT
ADDRESS SPACE USAGE described in section 3.2.1.2. One must be sure
that USERS ARE NOT ACQUIRING MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
FROM DIFFERENT IRs. Moreover, one must check that a similar address
space request has not been refused by another IR for some valid
reason.
Kind regards,
Eamonn McGuinness
RIPE NCC Hostmaster Team Leader
Go faster !
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/tips/tips.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/index.html
WebAsused !
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20001001-20010101/msg00029.html
In message <009F72F3.75DCBE02.1@localhost>you write:
>[ Moderator note: changed local-ir@localhost -> lir-wg@localhost ]
>
>
>Hello,
> Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for
>this kind of questions.
> I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of
>people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to
>know about any defined regulation in this regard.
> The Question:
>
> Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to
>return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new
>IP assignment?
> This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments
>from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people
>at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO
>return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!!
>
> Any comment?
>
>Kind Regards,
>IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran
>Saeed.
>
>
>
>
