Are the "highly competitive" LIRs "for profit" or "non profit" ? Do you anticipate ARIN following RIPE and getting into the TLD business ? Also, do companies come to RIPE or the LIRs to obtain address blocks to avoid other registries ? On Friday, May 15, 1998 2:21 AM, Mike Norris[SMTP:Mike.Norris@heanet.ie] wrote: @ @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 @ @ @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM