------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:50:42 +0900 From: David Conrad <davidc@keio.jp.apnic.net> To: iab@isi.edu cc: apnic-staff@apnic.net, apnic-wg@nic.ad.jp, iepg@iepg.org Subject: draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt Hi, I have a few questions regarding the recently submitted draft 'draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt'. I have included relevant text above the specific questions, so the context can be understood. I apologize in advance for the length of this message as I know you all are very busy people, but this document may have *very* significant impact on the operation of APNIC and I feel it is important to fully understand the intent.
From draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt:
... With the advent of RFC 1466 and RFC 1597 the criteria for the allocation of unique IP numbers and the reservation of unique IP numbers have been defined. ... Q1) Does the IAB feel RFC 1466 completely defines the criteria under which the registries may allocate space? Q2) Does the IAB feel the criteria in RFC 1466 addresses the issues of accurate host and subnet estimates for service providers? ... if an organization meets the size requirement for the requested address(es) and submits an engineering plan, the organization has fulfilled the necessary requirments. The Regional Registry will make the allocation based on the established criteria. The preconditions defined in RFC 1466 are limited to number of hosts and subnets as well as an engineering plan if the request deviates from the standard criteria. ... Q3) Would it be possible for the IAB to explicitly define their view of "engineering plan" within the context of this document? Q4) I would note that there appears to be a contradiction here with respect to the need for engineering plans, the first paragraph implies the requirement regardless of conformance to the 1466 criteria, the second paragraph implies the requirement only if the criteria are violated. In the view of the IAB, which of these two alternatives is the correct one? ... The Internet registries must honor an enterprise's request for a globally unique IP address provided that the request meets the other conditions used to deterimine the appropriate size of address block to allocate. ... Q5) Is it the intent of the IAB to disallow registries from obtaining additional information which attempt to verify the validity of the 24 month host and subnet estimates, even if the request falls within the RFC 1466 criteria? Q6) Is it the intent of the IAB to disallow registries from recovering reasonable costs for the allocation of address space and the operation of the registry as a pre-requisite for obtaining the address space? ... Any organization which anticipates having external connectivity is encouraged to apply for a globally unique IP address. ... Q7) Can the IAB express their views on the impact of the policies defined in the draft statement on the conservation of address space, or does the IAB feel conservation of address space is not a significant concern due to the impending implementation of IPv6? Q8) Can the IAB express their views on the impact of the policies defined in the draft statement on the aggregation of address space into provider-based address blocks or does the IAB feel such aggregation is not a significant concern due to the impending implementation of IPv6? Thank you for your time and best wishes for the New Year. Regards, - -drc ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 13:21:44 +0100 From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> Sender: dfk@ripe.net To: David Conrad <davidc@keio.jp.apnic.net> Cc: iab@isi.edu, apnic-staff@apnic.net, apnic-wg@nic.ad.jp, iepg@iepg.org Subject: Re: draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:50:42 +0900. <199501031050.TAA02928@keio.jp.apnic.net> ------- The questions David raises are quite to the point and highlight the fact that patching things by way of an additional RFC here and there will not work and rather make things worse because there inevitably will be contradictions and possible misinterpretations. On the other hand totally "hard-coded" assignemnt criteria are not useful either. There must be some room for judgement on the part of the registries. The conclusion has to be that if the IAB wants to direct address space assignment they have to come up with a revised RFC1466 with input from IANA, the registries (and that includes registries operated by ISPs) as well as the community at large. As I have indicated in the past, the RIPE NCC is quite willing to contribute to that effort. on behalf of the RIPE community, I would be very disappointed if the IAB decides to go ahead with publishing the draft as is. I will forward detailed comments I have made to the IAB to the IEPG separately. Regards Daniel Karrenberg Manager RIPE NCC