Local IRs are unusual entities. Their function as such is
not their primary raison d'etre. They are not in business
to allocate arcane numbers. Rather they provide, in a
highly competitive market, a growing spectrum of Internet
services. Part of their business is to assign IP addresses
in such a way as to maintain global connectivity and routability
within the ever expanding Internet. In this sense, we can
call them local IRs. Here they must work with other local IRs,
who happen to be their competitors as ISPs, and with the
regional registry, in order to ensure interoperability and
equity.
LIR WG and the RIPE NCC
-----------------------
The LIR WG is part of the framework that promotes this
necessary collaboration. The other important part is the
RIPE NCC, in its capacity as the European regional registry.
The separate identities of the WG and the NCC mirrors their
different roles in determining policy and implementing it.
At the same time, a close relationship between the two can
lead to informed decisions and a responsive operation of
policy.
The relationship has evolved over time as both the RIPE NCC
and local IRs have changed. The recent incorporation of RIPE
NCC has helped to formalise the relationship. The NCC has
always been sensitive to the needs of RIPE members. The change
has been that there is now a legal basis for ISPs both supporting
and having a say in the governance of the NCC. A subtle change
perhaps, but one that ensures a measure of stability in the
functioning of the NCC and the delivery of its services, such as
that of regional IP registrar.
This bottom-up model, largely developed in RIPE, is now being
paralleled in other regions. It is a good example of the
industry, though highly competitive, regulating itself. Indeed,
the model may be applied at the global level, if recent proposals
for the opening up and restructuring of IANA functions are to
follow their logical course.
There may be a need to extend the model in the other direction.
Some large local IRs are allocating address space to their
customers and devolving to them the task of assigning the
addresses. With generic procedures already in place, it should
be possible to extend the chain of responsibility and accountability
to such sub-local IRs.
Policy and Procedures
---------------------
While not cast in stone, "Title" (ripe-???) provides a solid
basis for the orderly development of the Internet in Europe.
That it was developed by consensus and is a public document
adds to its strength. Of course it will need continual
revision and the LIR WG must respond to genuine needs in a
timely yet deliberate fashion.
I am not saying that this is the end of history and that the
issue of IP address allocation has been settled forever. But
at least there should be no room for fear, uncertainty or doubt
about the manner in which IP numbers are allocated and applied.
It may be that the battle is being waged on new territory.
We have seen the debate in Europe and more widely over the
name space and its various generic and national subsets.
Indeed, one of RIPE's newest working groups is devoting a
lot of effort to the issues of name registration.
While the allocation of IP addresses continues apace, the
big demand is for names to be registered on the Internet.
We can see the trend in Europe from the host count conducted
by the RIPE NCC since 1992. There has been a consistent
and exponential growth in the number of hosts (corresponding
to IP addresses). Of late, however, there has been an even
more spectacular growth in the number of SOA records
(corresponding to zone files or domain names).
Up until just three years, the ratio of hosts to SOA records
hovered up and down in the low 70s. Since then, however, it
has consistently dropped every month, and now stands at a value
of 12. We are asymtpotically approaching a position of parity
between host and domains. Just imagine the contention for domain
names, and the strain that will put on a registry structure that
at present is virtually flat.
Looking ahead
-------------
In addition to their current task of managing IP address
space, local IRs face the challenge of migration to IPv6.
We hope to learn directly about this at RIPE 30, as well
as paying close attention to the work of the IPv6 WG.
For the steady state of IPv6, new policies, procedures,
tools and training materials will have to be prepared. The
transition itself requires careful coordination between
LIRs and with the NCC and the IPv6 WG.
Right now, IPv4 registration will proceed, as will the
need for consistency and quality in the operation of the
procedures. The audit program of the NCC will help here,
as will the LIR WG's promotion of high standards in the
assignment and use of IP addresses.
There will continue to be challenges and concerns for local
IRs in their management of IP addresses on behalf of their
clients. The use of private addresses, firewalls, NAT,
intranets and other techniques will change our model of
the Internet and we must learn to understand their effects.
Address aggregation is still a high priority, yet we must
be sensitive to the need for connectivity in a highly
volatile market.
These are but some of the tasks facing the Local IR working
group. Perhaps we could discuss this at RIPE 30 and on the
list.
Regards.
Mike Norris
