As per Relevance of the word organization, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group E.
Request for Comments: 1366
October 1992
Guidelines for Management of IP Address
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo
unlimited
This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Task
(FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co
chairs of the International Engineering Planning Group (IEPG),
the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE). There was general consensus
those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this
for management of the IP address space
1.0
With the growth of the Internet and its increasing globalization
much thought has been given to the evolution of the network
allocation and assignment process. RFC 1174, "Identifier
and Connected Status", dated August 1990 recommends that the
Registry (IR) continue as the principal registry for network numbers
however, the IR may allocate blocks of network numbers and
assignment of those numbers to qualified organizations. The IR
serve as the default registry in cases where no
registration authority has been identified
The distribution of the registration function is desirable, and
keeping with that goal, it is necessary to develop a plan
manages the distribution of the network number space. The demand
network numbers has grown significantly within the last two years
as a result the allocation of network numbers must be approached in
more systematic fashion
This document proposes a plan which will forward the
of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of
network number space. There are three major topics to be addressed
1) Qualifications for Distributed Regional
2) Allocation of the Network Number Space by the Internet
Gerich [Page 1]
RFC 1366 Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space October 1992
3) Assignment of the Network
2.0 Qualifications for Distributed Regional
The major reason to distribute the registration function is that
Internet serves a more diverse global population than it did at
inception. This means that registries which are located in
geographic areas may be better able to serve the local community
terms of language and local customs. While there appears to be
support for the concept of distribution of the registration function
it is important to define how the candidate delegated registries
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
consider delegating the registration function to an organization
each of those geographic areas. Until an organization is
in those regions, the IR will continue to serve as the
registry. The IR remains the root registry and continues to
the registration function to all those regions not covered
distributed regional registries. And as other regions of the
become more and more active in the Internet, the IANA and the IR
choose to look for candidate registries to serve the populations
those geographic regions
It is important that the regional registry is unbiased and and
recognized by network providers and subscribers within the
region. It is also important that there is just a single
registry per geographical region at this level to provide
efficient and fair sub-allocation of the address space. To
selected as a distributed regional registry an organization
meet the following criteria
a) networking authorities within the geographic
legitimize the
b) the organization is well-established and
legitimacy outside of the registry
c) the organization will commit appropriate resources
provide stable, timely, and reliable
to the geographic
d) the commitment to allocate IP numbers according
the guidelines established by the IANA and the
e) the commitment to coordinate with the IR to
qualifications and strategies for sub-allocations
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
to provide the network number registration function to a
area. It is possible for network subscribers to contact the
directly. Depending on the circumstances the network subscriber
be referred to the regional registry, but the IR will be prepared
service any network subscriber if necessary
3.0 Allocation of the Network Number Space by the Internet
The Class A portion of the number space represents 50% of the
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
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
the entire number space will be retained by the IR. No
from the Class A and B network numbers will be made to
regional registries at this time
The Class C network number space will be divided into
blocks which will be reserved by the IANA and IR for allocation
distributed regional registries. In the absence of
regional registries in geographic areas, the IR will assign
to networks within those geographic areas according to the Class
allocation divisions
A preliminary inspection of the Class C IP network numbers shows
the number space with prefixes 192 and 193 are assigned.
remaining space from prefix 194 through 223 is mostly unassigned
The IANA and the IR will reserve the upper half of this space
corresponds to the IP address range of 208.0.0.0
223.255.255.255. Network numbers from this portion of the Class
space will remain unallocated and unassigned until further notice
The remaining Class C network number space will be allocated in
fashion which is compatible with potential address
techniques. It is intended to divide this address range into
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
total Class C address space
It is proposed that a broad geographic allocation be used for
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
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/
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.
there are qualifying regional registries established,
responsibility for allocation from within that block will
delegated to that registry
The ranges designated as "Others" permit flexibility in
number assignments which are outside of the geographical
already allocated. The range listed as multi-regional
network numbers which have been assigned prior to the
of this plan. It is proposed that the IANA and the IR will
these divisions of the Class C network number space and will
assigning network numbers accordingly
4.0 Assignment of the Network Number
The exhaustion of the IP address space is a topic of concern for
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
available to transition to a new numbering
2) to assign the Class C network number space in a fashion
is compatible with proposed address aggregation
4.1 Class
The Class A number space can support the largest number of
host identifier addresses and is also the class of network
most sparsely populated. There are only approximately 77 Class
network numbers which are unassigned, and these 77 network
represent about 30% of the total network number space
The IANA will retain sole responsibility for the assignment of
A network numbers. The upper half of the Class A number space will
reserved indefinitely (IP network addresses 64.0.0.0
127.0.0.0). While it is expected that no new assignments of Class
numbers will take place in the near future, any
petitioning the IANA for a Class A network number will be expected
provide a detailed technical justification documenting network
and structure. Class A assignments are at the IANA's discretion
4.2 Class
Previously organizations were recommended to use a subnetted Class
network number rather than multiple Class C network numbers. Due
the scarcity of Class B network numbers and the under utilization
the Class B number space by most organizations, the recommendation
now to use multiple Class Cs where practical
The IANA and the IR will maintain sole responsibility for the Class
number space. Where there are designated regional registries,
registries will act in an auxiliary capacity in evaluating
for Class B numbers. Organizations applying for a Class B
number should fulfill the following criteria
1) the organization presents a subnetting plan
documents more than 32 subnets within its
2) the organization has more than 4096 hosts
These criteria assume that an organization which meets this
will continue to grow and that assigning a Class B network number
them will permit network growth and reasonable utilization of
Gerich [Page 5]
RFC 1366 Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space October 1992
assigned number space. There may be circumstances where it will
impossible to utilize a block of Class C network numbers in place
a Class B. These situations will be considered on a case-by-
basis
4.3 Class
Section 3 of this document recommends a division of the Class
number space. That division is primarily an administrative
which lays the groundwork for distributed network number registries
This section deals with how network numbers are assigned from
those blocks. Sub-allocations of the block to sub-registries
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
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
class C network numbers from the number space reserved for
networks, 194.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255. If an organization
Central America required fewer than 512 unique IP addresses and
than 256, it would receive 2 contiguous class C network numbers
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
function will determine the number of Class C network numbers
assign to a network subscriber based on the following criteria
Organization
1) requires fewer than 256 addresses 1 class C
2) requires fewer than 512 addresses 2 contiguous class C
3) requires fewer than 1024 addresses 4 contiguous class C
4) requires fewer than 2048 addresses 8 contiguous class C
5) requires fewer than 4096 addresses 16 contiguous class C
The number of addresses that a network subscriber indicates that
needs should be based on a 24 month projection
The maximal block of class C nets that should be assigned to
subscriber consists of sixteen contiguous class C networks
corresponds to a single IP prefix the length of which is twelve bits
If a subscriber has a requirement for more than 4096 unique
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
This proliferation of class C network numbers may aid in
the scarcity of class A and B numbers, but it is sure to
the explosion of routing information carried by Internet routers
Inherent in these recommendations is the assumption that there
be modifications in the technology to support the larger number
network address assignments due to the decrease in assignments
Class A and B numbers and the proliferation of Class C assignments
Many proposals have been made to address the rapid growth of
assignments and a discussion of those proposals is beyond the
and intent of this paper
These recommendations for management of the current IP network
space only profess to delay depletion of the IP address space, not
postpone it indefinitely
6.0
The author would like to acknowledge the substantial
made by the members of the following two groups, the
Engineering Planning Group (FEPG) and the International
Planning Group (IEPG). This document also reflects many
expressed at the IETF Addressing BOF which took place in Cambridge
MA in July 1992. In addition, Jon Postel (ISI) and Yakov
(T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp.) reviewed this document
contributed to its content. The author thanks those groups
individuals who have been sighted for their comments
7.0
[1] Wang, Z., and J. Crowcroft, "A Two-Tier Address Structure for
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,
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
Classifications", Work in Progress, March 1992.
[5] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadha, "Supernetting:
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
Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change
Internet 'Connected' Status", RFC 1174, CNRI, August 1990.
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
Elise
Merit Computer
1075 Beal
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
Phone: (313) 936-3000
EMail: epg@MERIT.
Gerich [Page 8]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
