summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt731
1 files changed, 731 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0ff44ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,731 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group K. Hubbard
+Request for Comments: 2050 M. Kosters
+Obsoletes: 1466 InterNIC
+BCP: 12 D. Conrad
+Category: Best Current Practice APNIC
+ D. Karrenberg
+ RIPE
+ J. Postel
+ ISI
+ November 1996
+
+
+ INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
+ Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+IESG Note:
+
+ By approving this document as a Best Current Practice,the IESG
+ asserts its belief that this policy described herein is an accurate
+ representation of the current practice of the IP address registries
+ with respect to address assignment. This does not constitute
+ endorsement or recommendation of this policy by the IESG. The IESG
+ will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997 taking
+ into consideration the results of the discussions that will be take
+ place in the IRE Working Group between now and then.
+
+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 describes the IP assignment policies currently used by
+ the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by the
+ IANA. The guidelines and these policies are subject to revision at
+ the direction of the IANA. The registry working group (IRE WG) will
+ be discussing these issues and may provide advice to the IANA about
+ possible revisions.
+
+ This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines and
+ procedures updated and modified in the light of experience.
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction.......................................2
+ 2. Allocation Framework...............................4
+ 2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers.........4
+ 2.2 Submission of Reassignment Information............6
+ 3. Assignment Framework..............................7
+ 3.1 Common Registry Requirements......................7
+ 3.2 Network Engineering Plans.........................8
+ 3.3 Previous Assignment History.......................9
+ 3.4 Network Deployment Plans..........................9
+ 3.5 Organization Information..........................9
+ 3.6 Expected Utilization Rate.........................10
+ 4. Operational Guidelines for Registries.............10
+ 5. In-Addr.Arpa Domain Maintenance...................11
+ 6. Right to Appeal...................................11
+ 7. References........................................12
+ 8. Security Considerations...........................12
+ 9. Authors' Addresses................................13
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ The addressing constraints described in this document are largely the
+ result of the interaction of existing router technology, address
+ assignment, and architectural history. After extensive review and
+ discussion, the authors of this document, the IETF working group that
+ reviewed it and the IESG have concluded that there are no other
+ currently deployable technologies available to overcome these
+ limitations. In the event that routing or router technology develops
+ to the point that adequate routing aggregation can be achieved by
+ other means or that routers can deal with larger routing and more
+ dynamic tables, it may be appropriate to review these constraints.
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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 its established needs.
+
+ 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 its core service
+ areas. It is expected that the number of regional IRs will remain
+ relatively small. Service areas will be of continental
+ dimensions.
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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 its 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 its designated
+ geographical areas. These areas are usually of national
+ dimensions.
+
+2. 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 by regional registries to assign to its 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 its 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 its upstream provider. 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
+ (for purposes of this document, a major routing exchange
+ is defined as a neutral layer 2 exchange point connecting
+ four or more unrelated ISPs.)
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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.
+
+ 2. To ensure efficient implementation and use of Classless
+ Inter-Domain Routing (IDR), the Regional Registries issue
+ address space on appropriate "CIDR-supported" bit boundaries.
+
+ 3. ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient
+ manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented
+ justification available for each assignment. The regional
+ registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If the
+ information is not available, future allocations may be impacted.
+ In extreme cases, existing loans 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 its 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
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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.
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+3. 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 RFC1918.
+ 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 with no favored connection.
+
+ c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is
+ very large, for example, the network prefix required to
+ cover the request is of length /18 or shorter.
+
+ All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or
+ utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described
+ in RFC1918 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.
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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 its 1
+ year utilization rate and supply documentation to justify the 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 128 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 continues to be 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
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ The subnetting plans should include:
+
+ a) a tabular listing of all subnets on the network
+
+ b) its 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. Routing table efficiency will be
+ taken into account by the regional registries and each request will
+ be handled on a case by case basis.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+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.
+
+4. Operational Guidelines For Registries
+
+ 1. Regional Registries provide registration services as its
+ 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 its address space, sub-registries
+ (Local IRs, ISPs, etc.) must adhere to the guidelines of its
+ regional registry. In turn, it must also ensure that its
+ 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.
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+ 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.
+
+5. 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 its customers.
+
+ IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for networks not associated with a
+ specific provider will continue to be maintained by the regional
+ registry.
+
+6. 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). If necessary, after
+ exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may be forwarded to IANA for
+ a final decision. Each registry must, as part of their policy,
+ document and specify how to appeal a registry assignment decision.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+7. References
+
+ [RFC 1519] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan,
+ "Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
+ Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", September 1993.
+
+ [RFC 1518] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "An Architecture for IP
+ Address Allocation with CIDR", September 1993.
+
+ [RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., and
+ G. de Groot, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
+ February 1996.
+
+ [RFC 1814] Gerich, E., "Unique Addresses are Good", June 1995.
+
+ [RFC 1900] Carpenter, B., and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work",
+ February 1996.
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines November 1996
+
+
+9. 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
+
+ Jon Postel
+ USC/Information Sciences Institute
+ 4676 Admiralty Way
+ Marina del Rey, CA 90292
+
+ Phone: 310-822-1511
+ EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU
+
+
+
+
+
+Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
+