Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:11:25 +0200
"Stephen Burley" stephenb@localhost writes:
* A question to the NCC or any other registry managers:
*
* What is the criteria by which the RIR's request space from IANA, is it an
* 80% usage rule?
Yes, it is.
Regards,
Sabrina Waschke
--
o------------------------------------------o
| Sabrina Waschke sabrina@localhost |
| Registration Services Operations Manager |
| |
| RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 |
| www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 |
o------------------------------------------o
* ----- Original Message -----
* From: "Anne Lord" anne@localhost
* To: "Hamid Alipour" alipour@localhost
*; "Mirjam Kuehne" mir@localhost
* Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:36 AM
* Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal
*
*
*
* hi,
*
* > Stephen seems just wants to solve UUNET problem
* > with proposing MIR. However I am agree basically
* > with the Idea. APNIC has added NIR
* > ( National Internet Registry ) to the hierarchy.
* > I think RIPE must let the NIRs as well.
*
* Just a note about this. The membership category of NIR actually
* does not relate in any way to the specific problem that Stephen is trying
* to address which is that of large multinational organisations routed
* under one AS, having discontiguous IP address allocations through the
* establishment of many LIRs. In fact, the NIR model actually does nothing
* for aggregation - as NIRs receive a block which they further allocate
* to their members who run businesses within a particular country. The
* members in those countries served by NIRs are more likely to receive
* discontiguous blocks (simply because the NIRs have a smaller pool), thus
* not contributing to aggregation of routing information at all.
* We are working with the NIRs to solve this with a referral process for
* allocations directly from APNIC for the very large members of NIRs.
*
* Of course, having access to a local language service is very much on the
* plus side of having NIRs.
*
* For the record though, the NIRs exist under the confederation membership
* category. This also includes ISP confederations as well as NIRs. The
* two are *very* different entities, so the confederation category has
* been suspended until we work out a better solution.
*
* While I agree totally with Stephens objective and understand the motivation,
* the proposal needs detail. How would it work exactly? APNIC's ISP
* confederation
* model which tried to address the same thing, did not work, and gave unfair
* advantages to the ISP confederations. (Part of the reason the
* 'confederation'
* category has been suspended).
*
* It is definately a laudable challenge to try to produce a model and
* procedures such that the policies are fairly applied to all.
*
* regards
*
* Anne
* _____________________________________________________________________
* Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison anne@localhost
* Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3367 0490
* http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3367 0482
* _____________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
* >
* >
* > ----- Original Message -----
* > From: "Stephen Burley" stephenb@localhost
* > To: crain@localhost; lir-wg@localhost
* > Sent: 06/09/2001 7:40 È.Ù
* > Subject: Re: MIR proposal
* >
* >
* > >
* > > ----- Original Message -----
* > > From: "John L Crain" crain@localhost
* > >
* > > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM
* > > Subject: Re: MIR proposal
* > >
* > >
* > > > <CUT>
* > > >
* > > > Hi Gert,
* > > >
* > > > >
* > > > > And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and
* > > > > having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of
* ours
* > > > > isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
* > > >
* > > > The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this.
* > > > An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly
* to
* > > > networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to
* > resellers/downstreams.
* > > >
* > > > I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of
* room
* > > we
* > > > have to play with.
* > >
* > > We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
* > >
* > >
* > > >
* > > > I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that
* > defines
* > > > who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet
* > > concept
* > > > to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially"
* > sub-
* > > > allocate.
* > > >
* > >
* > > Its not so different from the RIR model.
* > >
* > > > I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not
* sure
* > > how
* > > > it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get
* their
* > > IP
* > > > addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional
* > > registry
* > > > I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
* > > >
* > >
* > > MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they
* would
* > > not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy
* > > country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with
* > the
* > > NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not
* > to
* > > other ISP's or customers direct.
* > > BTW Nice to hear from you.
* > >
* > >
* > > > John Crain
* > > >
* > > >
* > > >
* > > >
* > > >
* > > >
* >
* > * Mailing List: hostmaster-staff *
* > * Handled by majordomo@localhost *
* >
*
*
*
