[address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes

On 16/04/2009, at 5:52 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hello Peter,
>
>>  For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and
>>  second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been  
>> dedicated
>>  for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see  
>> RFC 3330).
>
> I am curious why the RIPE NCC is asked for this /24. If IANA has  
> provided 192.0.2/24 in the past, why can't IANA provide another /24?  
> It would require an RFC, but isn't that the right place to do this?
>
> Just trying to get all the background information :)
> Sander
>


Perhaps I may be permitted to add some background data here.

This topic has surfaced in the past in the case of IPv6 addresses and  
AS numbers.

In the case of IPv6 the original APNIC proposal was rephrased as an  
RFC and the IANA documented the reservation in the IPv6 address  
registry on the basis of the published RFC.

In the case of AS numbers there was a policy proposal in APNIC whose  
implementation was abandoned following the publication of an RFC that  
requested IANA to perform the registration.

My interpretation of the relative roles of the RIRs, IANA and the IETF  
in this area is that such reservations, as distinct from allocations  
or assignments, should be performed by the IANA, and for IANA to  
undertake this it should be part of the protocol's address plan, and  
hence should be published as an RFC. i.e. as far as I understand the  
situation such reservations of number resources for documentation  
purposes falls to IANA to perform, and the instructions to IANA are in  
the form of a published RFC. The logical inference is that such  
proposals should head to the IETF rather than the RIRs.

thanks,

    Geoff