From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt | 731 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 731 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2050.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3