Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Sat Jan 27 19:58:39 UTC 1996

  > Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no writes:
  > Hi,
  > 
  > I see Daniel hasn't answered this one (weekend for some, I guess ;-)

Yeah, I went outside with wife and kids.
It *is* cold ( -5 Celsius plus wind chill for those still to 
depart for here).

  > ...
  > I think this is fairly accurate, but since this is not coming from
  > the authoritative source I may have made minor mistakes in
  > formulating the above.

Thank you Havard, as usual you are right on the money.

For those interested, the latest and most tutorial writeup of this
can be found at

	ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-104++.{ps,txt}

Main points again:

 - the RIPE NCC as regional registry only deals with local registries

 - local registries are typically operated by ISPs

 - all local registries share the cost of the NCC
   (usually prevents the 1 host case)

 - anyone who commits to the  contribution and operational requirements
   can become local registry

 - there curerntly are 300+ local registries

 - local registries determine NCC activities and charging scheme

 - RIPE (operators technical forum) guides technical work of NCC

 - allocation = address space held by local registry for assignment

 - assignment = to end-user for operating network

 - assignments happen according to assignment policy, different
   from allocation policy

 - end-user can be ISP operating registry themselves,
   i.e. ISP has to abide by assignment policy when assigning themselves
   address space for their own use

 - size of first allocation for new registry fixed  (currently /19)

 - size of further allocations depends on usage rate

 - while we guarantee nothing, we try to make subsequent assignments 
   such that they can be aggregated with previous ones

So the answer to Yakhov's "1 host" question is:

We will refer them to their service provider. If they insist we will
send them the operational requirements, fee schedule and a service 
agreement. So far we have not heared back from any of the "1 host"
cases. Apparently they consider it not worth the hassle. 

Also there is a natural growth path for ISPs. We have seen quite a few
who initially had address space form their up-stram provider and
later decided to start operating their own local registry.
I have seen them using different strategies for using the original 
address space. Usually some thoughtful engineering will give them
good mileage.

While it is not perfect and far from esthetically pleasing
it works at the moment. 

Yakhov: It is amusing to see you argue about the registry system 
from a tower made of some off-white substance (not unlike the colour 
of the *real* Cisco routers made from real sheet metal with real fans). 
I challenge you to propose a realistic distribution/registration method 
of IPv4 addresses which can be implemented a.s.a.p and does not 
involve neutrally run registries.  With realistic I mean:

	- rough community consensus
	- little entropy
	- transition plan

You would make my day. Let's hear it.

Daniel