INTERNET-DRAFT K. Hubbard
InterNIC
M. Kosters
InterNIC
D. Conrad
APNIC
D. Karrenberg
RIPE
November 1995
INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES
draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum
of six months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced,
or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is not
appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material
or to cite them other than as a ``working draft'' or
``work in progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East
Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document describes the registry system for the distribution of
globally unique Internet address space and registry operations.
Particularly this document describes the rules and guidelines
governing the distribution of this address space.
This document does not describe private Internet address space and
multicast address space. It also does not describe regional and local
refinements of the global rules and guidelines.
This document can be considered the base set of operational guidelines
in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be imposed by a
particular registry as appropriate.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 1]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.......................................3
2. Allocation Framework...............................5
2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers.........5
2.2 Submission of Reassignment Information............7
3. Assignment Framework..............................8
3.1 Common Registry Requirements......................8
3.2 Network Engineering Plans.........................9
3.3 Previous Assignment History.......................10
3.4 Network Deployment Plans..........................10
3.5 Organization Information..........................11
3.6 Expected Utilization Rate.........................11
4. Operational Guidelines for Registries.............11
5. In-Addr.Arpa Domain Maintenance...................12
6. Right to Appeal...................................12
7. References........................................13
8. Authors' Addresses................................13
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 2]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
Introduction
Internet address space is distributed according to the following
three goals:
1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
Internet address space.
2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses
in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of
the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper
operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that
routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or
assignment of IPv4 addresses.
3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure
uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
at all levels.
It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that the
above goals be pursued. However it should be noted that
"Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals. All
the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis
and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
appropriate compromise.
The Internet Registry system
In order to achieve the above goals the Internet Registry (IR)
hierarchy was established.
The Internet Registry hierarchy consists of the following levels
of hierarchy as seen from the top down: IANA, Regional IRs, Local IRs.
IANA
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has authority over all number
spaces used in the Internet. This includes Internet Address Space.
IANA allocates parts of the Internet address space to regional IRs
according to their established needs.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 3]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
Regional IRs
Regional IRs operate in large geopolitical regions such as continents.
Currently there are three regional IRs established; InterNIC serving
North America, RIPE NCC serving Europe, and AP-NIC serving the Asian
Pacific region. Since this does not cover all areas, regional IRs
also serve areas around their core service areas. It is expected
that the number of regional IRs will remain relatively small.
Service areas will be of continental dimensions.
Regional IRs are established under the authority of the IANA. This
requires consensus within the Internet community of the region. A
consensus of Internet Service Providers in that region may be
necessary to fulfill that role.
The specific duties of the regional IRs include coordination and
representation of all local IRs in their respective regions.
Local IRs
Local IRs are established under the authority of the regional IR and
IANA. These local registries have the same role and responsibility
as the regional registries within their designated geographical areas.
These areas are usually of national dimensions.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 4]
^L
INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
II. ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK
2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
This document makes a distinction between the allocation of IP
addresses and the assignment of IP addresses. Addresses are allocated
to ISPs to assign to their customer base.
ISPs who exchange routing information with other ISPs at multiple
locations and operate without default routing may request space
directly from the regional registry in their geographical area.
ISPs with no designated regional registry may contact any regional
registry and the regional registry may either handle the request
or refer the request to an appropriate registry.
To facilitate hierarchical addressing, implemented using Classless
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), all other ISPs should request address
space directly from their upstream provider. It is preferred that ISPs
only request address space directly from regional registries if their
immediate requirement, when satisfied with a contiguous block
allocation, has a reasonable probability of being routable on the
Internet, and they meet one or more of the following conditions.
a) the ISP is directly connected to a major routing exchange
b) the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than one
simultaneous connection to the global Internet and no
connection is favored over the other
Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs, (non-provider
based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet.
The following are the IP allocation guidelines for ISPs:
1. CIDR addresses are allocated to ISPs in blocks. It is
recommended that those blocks remain intact. Fragmentation of
CIDR blocks is discouraged. More specifically, ISPs are
encouraged to treat address assignments as loans for the
duration of the connectivity provision. At the termination
of the Internet connectivity contract, e.g., the customer
moves to another service provider, it is recommended the
customer return the network addresses currently in use and
renumber into the new provider's address space. The ISP
should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be
completed before the IP addresses are reused.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 5]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
2. To ensure efficient implementation and use of Classless
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), the Regional Registries issue
address space on appropriate "CIDR-supported" bit boundaries.
ISPs will also be made aware of the procedures that define bit
boundary IP address allocation, and they must use these
procedures when allocating IP address space to their respective
customers if offering portable address space. Please note, in
this document "portable" is used to describe addresses that
are permitted to be removed from an ISP CIDR block.
3. ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient
manner. To this end, registries should have documented
justification available for each assignment. The parent registry
may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information
is not available, future allocations may be impacted.
4. IP addresses are allocated to ISPs using a slow-start
procedure. New ISPs will receive a minimal amount based
on immediate requirement. Thereafter, allocated blocks may be
increased based on utilization verification supplied to the
regional registry. The parent registries are responsible for
determining appropriate initial and subsequent allocations.
Additional address allocations will provide enough address space
to enable the ISP to assign addresses for three months
without requesting additional address space from their parent
registry. Please note that projected customer base has little
impact on the address allocations made by the parent registries.
Initial allocation will not be based on any current or future
routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements.
5. Due to the requirement to increase the utilization efficiency
of IPv4 address space, all assignments are made with the
assumption that sites make use of variable length subnet mask
(VLSM) and classless technologies within their network. Any
request for address space based on the use of classfull assumptions
will require a detailed justification. The use of classfull
technologies for the purposes of administrative convenience is
generally insupportable due to the limited availability of free
IPv4 address space.
6. Regional registries may set a maximum limit on assignment sizes
such that a second opinion of the regional registry is required.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 6]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
7. Due to constraints on the available free pool of IPv4 address
space, the use of static IP address assignments (e.g., one
address per customer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged.
While it is understood that the use of static addressing may
ease some aspects of administration, the current rate of
consumption of the remaining unassigned IPv4 address space does
not permit the assignment of addresses for administrative ease.
Organizations considering the use of static IP address assignment
are expected to investigate and implement dynamic assignment
technologies whenever possible.
2.2 Submission of Reassignment Information
It is imperative that reassignment information be submitted in a prompt
and efficient manner to facilitate database maintenance and ensure
database integrity. Therefore, assignment information must be
submitted to the regional registry immediately upon making the
assignment. The following reasons necessitate transmission of the
reassignment information:
a) to provide operational staff with information on who is using
the network number and to provide a contact in case of
operational/ security problems,
b) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of its
current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional
allocation,
c) to assist in IP allocation studies.
Procedures for submitting the reassignment information will be
determined by each regional registry based on its unique requirements.
All sub-registries (ISPs, Local registries, etc.) must register with
their respective regional registry to receive information regarding
reassignment guidelines. No additional CIDR blocks will be
allocated by the regional registry or upstream providers until
approximately 80% of all reassignment information has been submitted.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 7]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
III. ASSIGNMENT FRAMEWORK
An assignment is the delegation of authority over a block of IP
addresses to an end enterprise. The end enterprise will use
addresses from an assignment internally only; it will not sub-delegate
those addresses. This section discusses some of the issues involved in
assignments and the framework behind the assignment of addresses.
In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies,
use of regional registry services should be limited to the
assignment of IP addresses for organizations meeting one or
more of the following conditions:
a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
requires a globally unique IP address. The organization
should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1597.
If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.
b) the organization is multi-homed
c) the organization's request is very large, for example,
the network prefix required to cover the request is
of length /18 or shorter.
All other requestors should contact their ISP for address
space or utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks
described in RFC1597 until an Internet connection is established.
Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based),
are the least likely to be routable across the Internet.
3.1 Common Registry Requirements
Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is
limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor
in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the
Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern
the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 8]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic
criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed
below:
25% immediate utilization rate
50% utilization rate within 1 year
The utilization rate above is to be used as a guideline, there may be
be occasions when the 1 year rate does not fall exactly in this range.
Organizations must exhibit a high confidence level in their 1 year
utilization rate and supply documentation to justify their level of
confidence.
Organizations will be assigned address space based on immediate
utilization plus 1 year projected utilization. A prefix longer than
/24 may be issued if deemed appropriate. Organizations with less than
64 hosts will not be issued an IP address directly from the IRs.
Organizations may be issued a prefix longer than /24 if the
organization can provide documentation from a registry recognized
ISP indicating the ISP will accept the long prefix for injection
into the global routing system.
Exceptions to the criteria will not be made based on insufficient
equipment without additional detailed justification. Organizations
should implement variable length subnet mask (VLSM) internally to
maximize the effective utilization of address space. Address
assignments will be made under the assumption that VLSM is or will
be implemented.
IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria is met. The IANA
reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is
determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists.
In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts will be made
by the appropriate registry to inform the organization that the
addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space.
3.2 Network Engineering Plans
Before a registry makes an assignment, it must examine each address
space request in terms of the requesting organization's networking
plans. These plans should be documented, and the following information
should be included:
1. subnetting plans, including subnet masks and number of
hosts on each subnet for at least one year
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 9]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
2. a description of the network topology
3. a description of the network routing plans, including the
routing protocols to be used as well as any limitations.
The subnetting plans should include:
a) a tabular listing of all subnets on the network
b) their associated subnet masks
c) the estimated number of hosts
d) a brief descriptive remark regarding the subnet.
If subnetting is not being used, an explanation why it cannot be
implemented is required. Care must be taken to ensure that the host
and subnet estimates correspond to realistic requirements and are not
based on administrative convenience.
3.3 Previous Assignment History
To promote increased usage of address space, the registries will
require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the
enterprise, if any. In the context of address space allocation, an
"enterprise" consists of all divisions and/or subsidiaries falling
under a common parent organization. The previous assignment history
should include all network numbers assigned to the organization,
plus the network masks for those networks and the number of hosts
on each (sub-)network. Sufficient corroborating evidence should be
provided to allow the assigning registry to be confident that the
network descriptions provided are accurate.
3.4 Network Deployment Plans
In order to assign an appropriate amount of space in the required time
frame, a registry may request deployment plans for a network.
Deployment plans should include the number of hosts to be deployed per
time period, expected network growth during that time period, and
changes in the network topology that describe the growth.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 10]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
3.5 Organization Information
A registry may request that an organization furnish a published
description verifying that the organization is what it claims to be.
This information can consist of brochures, documents of incorporation,
or similar published material.
3.6 Expected Utilization Rate
As stated in the foregoing text, one of the key factors in determining
how much address space is appropriate for an organization is the
expected utilization rate of the network. The expected utilization
rate is the number of hosts connected to the network divided by the
total number of hosts possible on the network. In addition, the
estimated number of hosts should be projected over a reasonable time
frame, i.e., one in which the requesting enterprise has a high level
of confidence. The minimal utilization rate is set by the IANA and
may be changed at any time. New utilization rates may be enforced by
the regional registries prior to updating the written policy.
IV. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REGISTRIES
1. Regional Registries provide registration services as their
primary function. Therefore, regional registries may charge some
fee for services rendered, generally in relation to the cost of
providing those services.
2. Regardless of the source of their address space, sub-registries
(Local IRs, ISPs, etc.) must adhere to the guidelines of their
regional registry. In turn, they must also ensure that their
customers follow those guidelines.
3. To maximize the effective use of address space, IP addresses need
to be assigned/allocated in classless blocks. With this in mind,
assignments will not be made in Class Cs or Bs but by prefix
length. Consequently, an organization that would have been
assigned a Class B in the past will now be assigned a /16 prefix,
regardless of the actual address class.
4. All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification
by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.
If any assignment is found to be based on false information,
the registry may invalidate the request and return the
assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for
later assignment.
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 11]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
5. Due to technical and implementation constraints on the Internet
routing system and the possibility of routing overload, major
transit providers may need to impose certain restrictions to
reduce the number of globally advertised routes. This may
include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added to
the routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc.
Therefore, addresses obtained directly from regional registry
(provider-independent, also known as portable) are not
guaranteed routable on the Internet.
6. Information provided to request address space is often considered
sensitive by the requesting organization. The assigning
registry must treat as confidential any and all information
that the requesting organization specifically indicates as
sensitive. When a requesting organization does not have
assurance of privacy, the parent of the assigning registry may
be required to do the assignment. In such cases, the parent
registry will provide the assigning registry with information
regarding the appropriate amount of address space to allocate.
7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain
the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
requesting an IP address directly from the IR.
V. In-ADDR.ARPA Domain Maintenance
The regional registries will be responsible for maintaining
IN-ADDR.ARPA records only on the parent blocks of IP addresses issued
directly to the ISPs or those CIDR blocks of less than /16. Local
IRs/ISPs with a prefix length of /16 or shorter will be responsible
for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for their customers.
IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for networks not associated with a
specific provider will continue to be maintained by the regional
registry.
VI. Right to Appeal
If an organization feels that the registry that assigned its address
has not performed its task in the requisite manner, the organization
has the right of appeal to the parent registry.
In such cases, the assigning registry shall make available all relevant
documentation to the parent registry, and the decision of the parent
registry shall be considered final (barring additional appeals to the
parent registry's parent).
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 12]
^L
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES November 1995
VII. References
[RFC 1519] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan,
"Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy".
[RFC 1518] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "An Architecture for IP
Address Allocation with CIDR".
[RFC 1597] Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. de Groot,
"Address Allocation for Private Internets".
VIII. Authors' Addresses
Kim Hubbard
InterNIC Registration Services
c/o Network Solutions
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
Phone: (703) 742-4870
email: kimh@internic.net
Mark Kosters
InterNIC Registration Services
c/o Network Solutions
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
Phone: (703) 742-4795
email: markk@internic.net
David Conrad
Asia Pacific Network Information Center
c/o United Nations University
53-70 Jingumae 5-chome,
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150
JP
Phone: +81-3-5467-7014
email: davidc@APNIC.NET
Daniel Karrenberg
RIPE NCC
Kruislaan 409
SJ Amsterdam NL-1098
NL
Phone: +31 20 592 5065
email: dfk@RIPE.NET
Expiration Date May 1996 [Page 13]