doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1366.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1366.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8f3073
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1366.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          E. Gerich
+Request for Comments: 1366                                         Merit
+                                                            October 1992
+
+
+             Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is
+   unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Task Force
+   (FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co-
+   chairs of the International Engineering Planning Group (IEPG), and
+   the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE).  There was general consensus by
+   those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this document
+   for management of the IP address space.
+
+1.0  Introduction
+
+   With the growth of the Internet and its increasing globalization,
+   much thought has been given to the evolution of the network number
+   allocation and assignment process. RFC 1174, "Identifier Assignment
+   and Connected Status", dated August 1990 recommends that the Internet
+   Registry (IR) continue as the principal registry for network numbers;
+   however, the IR may allocate blocks of network numbers and the
+   assignment of those numbers to qualified organizations.  The IR will
+   serve as the default registry in cases where no delegated
+   registration authority has been identified.
+
+   The distribution of the registration function is desirable, and in
+   keeping with that goal, it is necessary to develop a plan which
+   manages the distribution of the network number space.  The demand for
+   network numbers has grown significantly within the last two years and
+   as a result the allocation of network numbers must be approached in a
+   more systematic fashion.
+
+   This document proposes a plan which will forward the implementation
+   of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of the
+   network number space.  There are three major topics to be addressed:
+
+      1) Qualifications for Distributed Regional Registries
+
+      2) Allocation of the Network Number Space by the Internet Registry
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+      3) Assignment of the Network Numbers
+
+2.0  Qualifications for Distributed Regional Registries
+
+   The major reason to distribute the registration function is that the
+   Internet serves a more diverse global population than it did at its
+   inception.  This means that registries which are located in distinct
+   geographic areas may be better able to serve the local community in
+   terms of language and local customs. While there appears to be wide
+   support for the concept of distribution of the registration function,
+   it is important to define how the candidate delegated registries will
+   be chosen and from which geographic areas.
+
+   Based on the growth and the maturity of the Internet in Europe,
+   Central/South America and the Pacific Rim areas, it is desirable to
+   consider delegating the registration function to an organization in
+   each of those geographic areas.  Until an organization is identified
+   in those regions, the IR will continue to serve as the default
+   registry.  The IR remains the root registry and continues to provide
+   the registration function to all those regions not covered by
+   distributed regional registries.  And as other regions of the world
+   become more and more active in the Internet, the IANA and the IR may
+   choose to look for candidate registries to serve the populations in
+   those geographic regions.
+
+   It is important that the regional registry is unbiased and and widely
+   recognized by network providers and subscribers within the geographic
+   region.  It is also important that there is just a single regional
+   registry per geographical region at this level to provide for
+   efficient and fair sub-allocation of the address space.  To be
+   selected as a distributed regional registry an organization should
+   meet the following criteria:
+
+      a) networking authorities within the geographic area
+         legitimize the organization
+
+      b) the organization is well-established and has
+         legitimacy outside of the registry function
+
+      c) the organization will commit appropriate resources to
+         provide stable, timely, and reliable service
+         to the geographic region
+
+      d) the commitment to allocate IP numbers according to
+         the guidelines established by the IANA and the IR
+
+      e) the commitment to coordinate with the IR to establish
+         qualifications and strategies for sub-allocations of
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+         the regional allocation.
+
+   The distributed regional registry is empowered by the IANA and the IR
+   to provide the network number registration function to a geographic
+   area.  It is possible for network subscribers to contact the IR
+   directly.  Depending on the circumstances the network subscriber may
+   be referred to the regional registry, but the IR will be prepared to
+   service any network subscriber if necessary.
+
+3.0  Allocation of the Network Number Space by the Internet Registry
+
+   The Class A portion of the number space represents 50% of the total
+   IP numbers; Class B is 25% of the total; Class C is approximately 12%
+   of the total.  Table 1 shows the current allocation of the IP network
+   numbers.
+
+                   Total           Allocated       Allocated (%)
+   Class A           126               49              38%
+   Class B         16383             7354              45%
+   Class C       2097151            44014               2%
+
+             Table 1: Network Number Statistics (June 1992) [1]
+
+   Class A and B network numbers are a limited resource and therefore
+   the entire number space will be retained by the IR.  No allocations
+   from the Class A and B network numbers will be made to distributed
+   regional registries at this time.
+
+   The Class C network number space will be divided into allocatable
+   blocks which will be reserved by the IANA and IR for allocation to
+   distributed regional registries.  In the absence of designated
+   regional registries in geographic areas, the IR will assign addresses
+   to networks within those geographic areas according to the Class C
+   allocation divisions.
+
+   A preliminary inspection of the Class C IP network numbers shows that
+   the number space with prefixes 192 and 193 are assigned.  The
+   remaining space from prefix 194 through 223 is mostly unassigned.
+
+   The IANA and the IR will reserve the upper half of this space which
+   corresponds to the IP address range of 208.0.0.0 through
+   223.255.255.255. Network numbers from this portion of the Class C
+   space will remain unallocated and unassigned until further notice.
+
+   The remaining Class C network number space will be allocated in a
+   fashion which is compatible with potential address aggregation
+   techniques. It is intended to divide this address range into eight
+   equally sized address blocks.
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+      192.0.0.0 - 193.255.255.255
+      194.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255
+      196.0.0.0 - 197.255.255.255
+      198.0.0.0 - 199.255.255.255
+      200.0.0.0 - 201.255.255.255
+      202.0.0.0 - 203.255.255.255
+      204.0.0.0 - 205.255.255.255
+      206.0.0.0 - 207.255.255.255
+
+   Each block represents 131,072 addresses or approximately 6% of the
+   total Class C address space.
+
+   It is proposed that a broad geographic allocation be used for these
+   blocks.  At present there are four major areas of address allocation:
+   Europe, North America, Pacific Rim, and South & Central America.
+
+   In particular, the top level block allocation be designated as
+   follows:
+
+   Multi-regional          192.0.0.0 - 193.255.255.255
+   Europe                  194.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255
+   Others                  196.0.0.0 - 197.255.255.255
+   North America           198.0.0.0 - 199.255.255.255
+   Central/South
+    America                200.0.0.0 - 201.255.255.255
+   Pacific Rim             202.0.0.0 - 203.255.255.255
+   Others                  204.0.0.0 - 205.255.255.255
+   Others                  206.0.0.0 - 207.255.255.255
+
+   It is proposed that the IR, and any designated regional registries,
+   allocate addresses in conformance with this overall scheme.  Where
+   there are qualifying regional registries established, primary
+   responsibility for allocation from within that block will be
+   delegated to that registry.
+
+   The ranges designated as "Others" permit flexibility in network
+   number assignments which are outside of the geographical regions
+   already allocated.  The range listed as multi-regional represents
+   network numbers which have been assigned prior to the implementation
+   of this plan.  It is proposed that the IANA and the IR will adopt
+   these divisions of the Class C network number space and will begin
+   assigning network numbers accordingly.
+
+4.0  Assignment of the Network Number Space
+
+   The exhaustion of the IP address space is a topic of concern for the
+   entire Internet community. This plan for the assignment of Class A,
+   B, or C IP numbers to network subscribers has two major goals:
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+      1) to reserve a portion of the IP number space so that it may be
+      available to transition to a new numbering plan
+
+      2) to assign the Class C network number space in a fashion which
+      is compatible with proposed address aggregation techniques
+
+4.1  Class A
+
+   The Class A number space can support the largest number of unique
+   host identifier addresses and is also the class of network numbers
+   most sparsely populated.  There are only approximately 77 Class A
+   network numbers which are unassigned, and these 77 network numbers
+   represent about 30% of the total network number space.
+
+   The IANA will retain sole responsibility for the assignment of Class
+   A network numbers. The upper half of the Class A number space will be
+   reserved indefinitely (IP network addresses 64.0.0.0 through
+   127.0.0.0). While it is expected that no new assignments of Class A
+   numbers will take place in the near future, any organization
+   petitioning the IANA for a Class A network number will be expected to
+   provide a detailed technical justification documenting network size
+   and structure. Class A assignments are at the IANA's discretion.
+
+4.2  Class B
+
+   Previously organizations were recommended to use a subnetted Class B
+   network number rather than multiple Class C network numbers.  Due to
+   the scarcity of Class B network numbers and the under utilization of
+   the Class B number space by most organizations, the recommendation is
+   now to use multiple Class Cs where practical.
+
+   The IANA and the IR will maintain sole responsibility for the Class B
+   number space.  Where there are designated regional registries, those
+   registries will act in an auxiliary capacity in evaluating requests
+   for Class B numbers.  Organizations applying for a Class B network
+   number should fulfill the following criteria:
+
+      1) the organization presents a subnetting plan which
+         documents more than 32 subnets within its organizational
+         network
+
+      AND
+
+      2) the organization has more than 4096 hosts.
+
+   These criteria assume that an organization which meets this profile
+   will continue to grow and that assigning a Class B network number to
+   them will permit network growth and reasonable utilization of the
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+   assigned number space. There may be circumstances where it will be
+   impossible to utilize a block of Class C network numbers in place of
+   a Class B.  These situations will be considered on a case-by-case
+   basis.
+
+4.3  Class C
+
+   Section 3 of this document recommends a division of the Class C
+   number space.  That division is primarily an administrative division
+   which lays the groundwork for distributed network number registries.
+   This section deals with how network numbers are assigned from within
+   those blocks. Sub-allocations of the block to sub-registries is
+   beyond the scope of this paper.
+
+   By default, if an organization requires more than a single Class C,
+   it will be assigned a bit-wise contiguous block from the Class C
+   space allocated for its geographic region.
+
+   For instance, an European organization which requires fewer than 2048
+   unique IP addresses and more than 1024 would be assigned 8 contiguous
+   class C network numbers from the number space reserved for European
+   networks, 194.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255.  If an organization from
+   Central America required fewer than 512 unique IP addresses and more
+   than 256, it would receive 2 contiguous class C network numbers from
+   the number space reserved for Central/South American networks,
+   200.0.0.0 - 201.255.255.255.
+
+   The IR or the registry to whom the IR has delegated the registration
+   function will determine the number of Class C network numbers to
+   assign to a network subscriber based on the following criteria:
+
+           Organization                            Assignment
+
+   1) requires fewer than 256 addresses    1 class C network
+   2) requires fewer than 512 addresses    2 contiguous class C networks
+   3) requires fewer than 1024 addresses   4 contiguous class C networks
+   4) requires fewer than 2048 addresses   8 contiguous class C networks
+   5) requires fewer than 4096 addresses  16 contiguous class C networks
+
+   The number of addresses that a network subscriber indicates that it
+   needs should be based on a 24 month projection.
+
+   The maximal block of class C nets that should be assigned to a
+   subscriber consists of sixteen contiguous class C networks which
+   corresponds to a single IP prefix the length of which is twelve bits.
+   If a subscriber has a requirement for more than 4096 unique IP
+   addresses it should most likely receive a Class B net number.
+
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+5.0  Conclusion
+
+   This proliferation of class C network numbers may aid in preserving
+   the scarcity of class A and B numbers, but it is sure to accelerate
+   the explosion of routing information carried by Internet routers.
+   Inherent in these recommendations is the assumption that there will
+   be modifications in the technology to support the larger number of
+   network address assignments due to the decrease in assignments of
+   Class A and B numbers and the proliferation of Class C assignments.
+
+   Many proposals have been made to address the rapid growth of network
+   assignments and a discussion of those proposals is beyond the scope
+   and intent of this paper.
+
+   These recommendations for management of the current IP network number
+   space only profess to delay depletion of the IP address space, not to
+   postpone it indefinitely.
+
+6.0  Acknowledgements
+
+   The author would like to acknowledge the substantial contributions
+   made by the members of the following two groups, the Federal
+   Engineering Planning Group (FEPG) and the International Engineering
+   Planning Group (IEPG). This document also reflects many concepts
+   expressed at the IETF Addressing BOF which took place in Cambridge,
+   MA in July 1992. In addition, Jon Postel (ISI) and Yakov Rekhter
+   (T.J.  Watson Research Center, IBM Corp.) reviewed this document and
+   contributed to its content. The author thanks those groups and
+   individuals who have been sighted for their comments.
+
+7.0  References
+
+   [1] Wang, Z., and J. Crowcroft, "A Two-Tier Address Structure for the
+       Internet: A Solution to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion",
+       RFC 1335, University College London, May 1992.
+
+   [2] "Internet Domain Survey", Network Information Systems Center, SRI
+       International, July 1992.
+
+   [3] Ford, P., "Working Draft - dated 6 May 1992", Work in Progress.
+
+   [4] Solensky F., and F. Kastenholz, "A Revision to IP Address
+       Classifications", Work in Progress, March 1992.
+
+   [5] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadha, "Supernetting: an
+       Address Assignments and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1338, BARRNet,
+       cisco, Merit, OARnet, June 1992.
+
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1366     Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space  October 1992
+
+
+   [6] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "Guidelines for IP Address Allocation",
+       Work in Progress, August 1992.
+
+   [7] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet
+       Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to
+       Internet 'Connected' Status", RFC 1174, CNRI, August 1990.
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Elise Gerich
+   Merit Computer Network
+   1075 Beal Avenue
+   Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
+
+   Phone: (313) 936-3000
+   EMail: epg@MERIT.EDU
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerich                                                          [Page 8]
+
\ No newline at end of file