standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses

Sat Jun 16 19:38:30 UTC 2001

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, David R Huberman wrote:

> >   Sorry, but nope, I don't understand it that way. Perhaps we need to
> > properly define utilization.
> 
> For the purposes of the RIRs and for any ISP assigning or allocating
> address space downstream, 'utilization' refers to an appropriate
> assignment made. If I have properly assigned 80% of an address block
> to my customers, I am 80% 'utilized' for the purposes of the RIRs. 

  Agreed.

> It is entirely irrelevant how much address space is actually being used,
> on an IP x IP basis by downstreams. If the assignments were justified
> per RFC2050, and the upstream has assigned 80% or more of its available
> address space, then it requires another block.

  Agreed.

> > To an end user, it means active hosts. ARIN suggests following RFC2050
> > and the 25%/50% standard prior to receiving an additional address
> > assignment from their ISP.
> 
> Please stop saying that.
> 
> ARIN requires ISPs to follow RFC2050's guidelines for *initial*
> assignments to end-users. End-users must demonstrate a need for 25% of the
> requested assignment immediately, and a need for 50% of the requested
> assignment within one year.

  Section 3 of RFC2050 refers only to the assignment of IP address space
to end users. Section 3.1, which is the only place where the 25%/50%
guideline exists, does not make any mention of that as being for "initial
assignment". One can only assume in reading that section that this
guideline is intended to be used for any initial AND ongoing assignments
to END USERS.

> For *additional* address assignments from an ISP, an end-user should
> demonstrate that they have utilized (in this case, meaning active
> utilization in a 'live' sense) 80% of the initial assignment.
>
> The difference is an important one. 25-50 is for *initial*, 80 is for
> *additional*.

  Please show where this is suggested in RFC2050. The only place in
RFC2050 where the 80% figure is used is in section 2.2, and then only in
relation to the level of assignment by the ISP and only for the purpose of
determining whether there should be an additional allocation to the ISP by
the registry.
  Further, there is no 25%/50% utilization guideline for an initial
allocation to an ISP. RFC2050 specifically states that "The parent
registries are responsible for determining appropriate initial and
subsequent allocations." but doesn't state what that would be other than
to say it should provide enough such that the ISP won't need to make
another request for 3 months.
  So, please stop saying that the "25-50 is for *initial*, 80 is for
*additional*."

> > This is even more confusing when the customer is both an end user and
> > a downstream ISP themselves. If they aren't in turn assigning address
> > space, then they are simply an end user and should be following
> > RFC2050.
> 
> The RIRs use the words "ISP" and "end-user" slightly differently than
> other folks. 
> 
> Any organization which does not assign their address space further
> downstream is considered an "end-user". It doesn't matter what their
> business activities are (indeed, they may be a service provider). For the
> purposes of this discussion, for the purposes of the RIRs, they are an
> end-user.

  They are an ISP if they SWIP address space to customers. They are an end
user if they don't. If they are an ISP, they should comply with the 80%
assignment reccomendation. If they are an end user, they should comply
with the 25%/50% utilization reccomendation.

  I guess I can't say it any more clearly than that and I'll say it again
that I think some ISP's make it unnecessarily difficult for customers to
get additional address space. It's apparent to me that they unwhittingly
do this to their customers because they get confused about what's
allocation policy and what's assignment policy (as testified to by the
path of this thread). 

Chuck