As per Relevance of the word registry, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group K.
Request for Comments: 2050 M.
Obsoletes: 1466
BCP: 12 D.
Category: Best Current Practice
D.
J.
November 1996
INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
IESG Note
By approving this document as a Best Current Practice,the
asserts its belief that this policy described herein is an
representation of the current practice of the IP address
with respect to address assignment. This does not
endorsement or recommendation of this policy by the IESG. The
will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997
into consideration the results of the discussions that will be
place in the IRE Working Group between now and then
This document describes the registry system for the distribution
globally unique Internet address space and registry operations
Particularly this document describes the rules and
governing the distribution of this address space
This document describes the IP assignment policies currently used
the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by
IANA. The guidelines and these policies are subject to revision
the direction of the IANA. The registry working group (IRE WG)
be discussing these issues and may provide advice to the IANA
possible revisions
This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines
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
multicast address space. It also does not describe regional
local refinements of the global rules and guidelines
This document can be considered the base set of
guidelines in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may
imposed by a particular registry as appropriate
Table of
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.
The addressing constraints described in this document are largely
result of the interaction of existing router technology,
assignment, and architectural history. After extensive review
discussion, the authors of this document, the IETF working group
reviewed it and the IESG have concluded that there are no
currently deployable technologies available to overcome
limitations. In the event that routing or router technology
to the point that adequate routing aggregation can be achieved
other means or that routers can deal with larger routing and
dynamic tables, it may be appropriate to review these constraints
Internet address space is distributed according to the
three goals
1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet
space according to the operational needs of the end-users and
Service Providers operating networks using this address space
Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of
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
in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability
the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure
operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed
routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation
assignment of IPv4 addresses
3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting
space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to
uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble
at all levels
It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that
above goals be pursued. However it should be noted
"Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals.
the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests
individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful
and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find
appropriate compromise
The Internet Registry
In order to achieve the above goals the Internet Registry (IR
hierarchy was established
The Internet Registry hierarchy consists of the following
of hierarchy as seen from the top down: IANA, Regional IRs,
IRs
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has authority over
number spaces used in the Internet. This includes
Address Space. IANA allocates parts of the Internet address
to regional IRs according to its established needs
Regional
Regional IRs operate in large geopolitical regions such
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
all areas, regional IRs also serve areas around its core
areas. It is expected that the number of regional IRs will
relatively small. Service areas will be of
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
region. A consensus of Internet Service Providers in that
may be necessary to fulfill that role
The specific duties of the regional IRs include coordination
representation of all local IRs in its respective regions
Local
Local IRs are established under the authority of the regional
and IANA. These local registries have the same role
responsibility as the regional registries within its
geographical areas. These areas are usually of
dimensions
2. Allocation
2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers (ISPs
This document makes a distinction between the allocation of
addresses and the assignment of IP addresses. Addresses
allocated to ISPs by regional registries to assign to its
base
ISPs who exchange routing information with other ISPs at
locations and operate without default routing may request
directly from the regional registry in its geographical area.
with no designated regional registry may contact any
registry and the regional registry may either handle the request
refer the request to an appropriate registry
To facilitate hierarchical addressing, implemented using
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), all other ISPs should request
space directly from its upstream provider. ISPs only request
space directly from regional registries if their
requirement, when satisfied with a contiguous block allocation, has
reasonable probability of being routable on the Internet, and
meet one or more of the following conditions
a) the ISP is directly connected to a major routing
(for purposes of this document, a major routing
is defined as a neutral layer 2 exchange point
four or more unrelated ISPs.)
b) the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than
simultaneous connection to the global Internet and
connection is favored over the
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-
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
recommended that those blocks remain intact. Fragmentation
CIDR blocks is discouraged. More specifically, ISPs
encouraged to treat address assignments as loans for
duration of the connectivity provision. At the
of the Internet connectivity contract, e.g., the
moves to another service provider, it is recommended
customer return the network addresses currently in use
renumber into the new provider's address space. The
should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to
completed before the IP addresses are reused
2. To ensure efficient implementation and use of
Inter-Domain Routing (IDR), the Regional Registries
address space on appropriate "CIDR-supported" bit boundaries
3. ISPs are required to utilize address space in an
manner. To this end, ISPs should have
justification available for each assignment. The
registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If
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-
procedure. New ISPs will receive a minimal amount
on immediate requirement. Thereafter, allocated blocks may
increased based on utilization verification supplied to
regional registry. The parent registries are responsible
determining appropriate initial and subsequent allocations
Additional address allocations will provide enough address
to enable the ISP to assign addresses for three
without requesting additional address space from its
registry. Please note that projected customer base has
impact on the address allocations made by the parent registries
Initial allocation will not be based on any current or
routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements
5. Due to the requirement to increase the utilization
of IPv4 address space, all assignments are made with
assumption that sites make use of variable length subnet
(VLSM) and classless technologies within their network.
request for address space based on the use of
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
classfull technologies for the purposes of
convenience is generally insupportable due to the
availability of free IPv4 address space
6. Regional registries may set a maximum limit on assignment
such that a second opinion of the regional registry is required
7. Due to constraints on the available free pool of IPv4
space, the use of static IP address assignments (e.g.,
address per customer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged
While it is understood that the use of static addressing
ease some aspects of administration, the current rate
consumption of the remaining unassigned IPv4 address space
not permit the assignment of addresses for administrative ease
Organizations considering the use of static IP address
are expected to investigate and implement dynamic
technologies whenever possible
2.2 Submission of Reassignment
It is imperative that reassignment information be submitted in
prompt and efficient manner to facilitate database maintenance
ensure database integrity. Therefore, assignment information must
submitted to the regional registry immediately upon making
assignment. The following reasons necessitate transmission of
reassignment information
a) to provide operational staff with information on who is
the network number and to provide a contact in case
operational/security problems
b) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of
current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an
allocation
c) to assist in IP allocation studies
Procedures for submitting the reassignment information will
determined by each regional registry based on its
requirements
All sub-registries (ISPs, Local registries, etc.) must register
their respective regional registry to receive information
reassignment guidelines. No additional CIDR blocks will be
by the regional registry or upstream providers until
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
An assignment is the delegation of authority over a block of
addresses to an end enterprise. The end enterprise will
addresses from an assignment internally only; it will not sub
delegate those addresses. This section discusses some of the
involved in assignments and the framework behind the assignment
addresses
In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies,
of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment
IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the
conditions
a) the organization has no intention of connecting
the Internet-either now or in the future-but it
requires a globally unique IP address. The
should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
If it is determined this is not possible, they can
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
very large, for example, the network prefix required
cover the request is of length /18 or shorter
All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space
utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks
in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note
addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are
least likely to be routable across the Internet
3.1 Common Registry
Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet
limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key
in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of
Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to
the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates
Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the
criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are
below
25% immediate utilization
50% utilization rate within 1
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 occasions when the 1 year rate does not fall exactly in
range. Organizations must exhibit a high confidence level in its 1
year utilization rate and supply documentation to justify the
of confidence
Organizations will be assigned address space based on
utilization plus 1 year projected utilization. A prefix longer
/24 may be issued if deemed appropriate. Organizations with
than 128 hosts will not be issued an IP address directly from
IRs. Organizations may be issued a prefix longer than /24 if
organization can provide documentation from a registry recognized
indicating the ISP will accept the long prefix for injection into
global routing system
Exceptions to the criteria will not be made based on
equipment without additional detailed justification.
should implement variable length subnet mask (VLSM) internally
maximize the effective utilization of address space.
assignments will be made under the assumption that VLSM is or will
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
is determined the the requirement for the address space no
exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable
will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the
that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv
address space
3.2 Network Engineering
Before a registry makes an assignment, it must examine each
space request in terms of the requesting organization's
plans. These plans should be documented, and the
information should be included
1. subnetting plans, including subnet masks and number
hosts on each subnet for at least one
2. a description of the network
3. a description of the network routing plans, including
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
b) its associated subnet
c) the estimated number of
d) a brief descriptive remark regarding the subnet
If subnetting is not being used, an explanation why it cannot
implemented is required. Care must be taken to ensure that the
and subnet estimates correspond to realistic requirements and are
based on administrative convenience
3.3 Previous Assignment
To promote increased usage of address space, the registries
require an accounting of address space previously assigned to
enterprise, if any. In the context of address space allocation,
"enterprise" consists of all divisions and/or subsidiaries
under a common parent organization. The previous assignment
should include all network numbers assigned to the organization,
the network masks for those networks and the number of hosts on
(sub-)network. Sufficient corroborating evidence should be
to allow the assigning registry to be confident that the
descriptions provided are accurate. Routing table efficiency will
taken into account by the regional registries and each request
be handled on a case by case basis
3.4 Network Deployment
In order to assign an appropriate amount of space in the
time frame, a registry may request deployment plans for a network
Deployment plans should include the number of hosts to be
per time period, expected network growth during that time period,
changes in the network topology that describe the growth
3.5 Organization
A registry may request that an organization furnish a
description verifying that the organization is what it claims to be
This information can consist of brochures, documents
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
As stated in the foregoing text, one of the key factors
determining how much address space is appropriate for an
is the expected utilization rate of the network. The
utilization rate is the number of hosts connected to the
divided by the total number of hosts possible on the network.
addition, the estimated number of hosts should be projected over
reasonable time frame, i.e., one in which the requesting
has a high level of confidence. The minimal utilization rate is
by the IANA and may be changed at any time. New utilization
may be enforced by the regional registries prior to updating
written policy
4. Operational Guidelines For
1. Regional Registries provide registration services as
primary function. Therefore, regional registries may charge
fee for services rendered, generally in relation to the cost
providing those services
2. Regardless of the source of its address space, sub-
(Local IRs, ISPs, etc.) must adhere to the guidelines of
regional registry. In turn, it must also ensure that
customers follow those guidelines
3. To maximize the effective use of address space, IP addresses
to be assigned/allocated in classless blocks. With this in mind
assignments will not be made in Class Cs or Bs but by
length. Consequently, an organization that would have
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
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
assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses
later assignment
5. Due to technical and implementation constraints on the
routing system and the possibility of routing overload,
transit providers may need to impose certain restrictions
reduce the number of globally advertised routes. This
include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added
the routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc
Therefore, addresses obtained directly from regional
(provider-independent, also known as portable) are
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
sensitive by the requesting organization. The
registry must treat as confidential any and all
that the requesting organization specifically indicates
sensitive. When a requesting organization does not
assurance of privacy, the parent of the assigning registry
be required to do the assignment. In such cases, the
registry will provide the assigning registry with
regarding the appropriate amount of address space to allocate
7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must
approved by the regional registries. The party trying to
the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they
requesting an IP address directly from the IR
5. In-ADDR.ARPA Domain
The regional registries will be responsible for maintaining IN
ADDR.ARPA records only on the parent blocks of IP addresses
directly to the ISPs or those CIDR blocks of less than /16.
IRs/ISPs with a prefix length of /16 or shorter will be
for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for its customers
IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for networks not associated with
specific provider will continue to be maintained by the
registry
6. Right to
If an organization feels that the registry that assigned its
has not performed its task in the requisite manner, the
has the right of appeal to the parent registry
In such cases, the assigning registry shall make available
relevant documentation to the parent registry, and the decision
the parent registry shall be considered final (barring
appeals to the parent registry's parent). If necessary,
exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may be forwarded to IANA
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.
[RFC 1519] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan
"Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", September 1993.
[RFC 1518] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "An Architecture for
Address Allocation with CIDR", September 1993.
[RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D.,
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
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'
Kim
InterNIC Registration
c/o Network
505 Huntmar Park
Herndon, VA 22070
Phone: (703) 742-4870
EMail: kimh@internic.
Mark
InterNIC Registration
c/o Network
505 Huntmar Park
Herndon, VA 22070
Phone: (703) 742-4795
EMail: markk@internic.
David
Asia Pacific Network Information
c/o United Nations
53-70 Jingumae 5-chome
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150
Phone: +81-3-5467-7014
EMail: davidc@APNIC.
Daniel
RIPE
Kruislaan 409
SJ Amsterdam NL-1098
Phone: +31 20 592 5065
EMail: dfk@RIPE.
Jon
USC/Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
EMail: Postel@ISI.
Hubbard, et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
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
