Hello all, At the last RIPE Meeting we were asked to make a change in the policy on allocations that an allocation only needs to be 80% used up instead of 90% before receiving a new one. After discussing it with the other Regional Registries, we have decided to go ahead with this change. This means that the Policies and Procedures document currently ripe-159 needs to be updated. At the same time Ive taken the opportunity to also include a few new sections in the document on practices that are already in place and should be mentioned. Below Ive included all the new/changed sections. Though theres also a few minor changes, mainly in documents/rfcs that have changed Please send us any comments you may have, before we publish the final document. By the way, there was a discussion on this list and the database working group mailing list a few weeks about version numbers of RIPE documents. As a result of that weve decided to start referencing RIPE documents by their titles and not their numbers on the web site and in other documents. The documents will still have a ripe-xxx number, so that you can see what the latest version is, but all references will be to the title instead of the number. Therefore, ripe-159 will changed to ripe-185, but the web site link will be to the document title once its officially published. Kind regards, Paula Caslav Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC Here is the list of major changes: Changed section 4.3 Further Allocations as decided at RIPE meeting:
To obtain a new allocation, a Local IR should submit a request to the RIPE NCC which includes a complete list of the assignments made from their last alloca- tion, however the RIPE NCC will check all the pre- vious allocations for 80% usage as well.
Changed section 6.2 Establishing a New Registry shortened it and mainly pointed to ripe-160 so that the procedure is only documented in one place and changes can be made more easily.
6.2. Establishing a New Registry
A local IR is established after submitting a request to the RIPE NCC which includes assurances that the relevant rules and guidelines defined in this and related documents are known and a commitment that they will be followed. The process of setting up a new registry is explained in detail in Guidelines for Setting up a Local Internet Registry currently ripe-160 [Caslav98a].
Added under section 6.4 Registry Operations:
External Quality Assurance
In order to promote consistent and fair application of assignment criteria with regard to conservation and registration of address space and aggregation of routing information, the RIPE NCC has started an activity of consistency checking of registry data and auditing of registries. To ensure that reg- istries are following the assignment criteria, and entering assignments into the database correctly, the RIPE NCC may contact a registry to ask for docu- mentation or more information about certain requests or database entries. If the NCC finds problems, it will work with the registry to correct these, and may take disciplinary action, such as lowering the registrys Assignment Window. This activity is described in-depth in RIPE NCC Consistency & Audit- ing Activity currently ripe-170 [Caslav97a].
Added under same section:
Distribution Robot
The RIPE NCC uses an automatic robot to distribute all messages sent to <hostmaster@ripe.net> and to do syntax checking on IP address space requests. For help on interacting with the robot, please see the RIPE NCC web site at:
Added new section 6.5 that allocations cant be transfered without RIPE NCC permission is already mentioned elsewhere, but I wanted a separate section to specifically point this out- weve had a few cases lately of registries changing owners without telling us:
6.5. When a Registry Changes Ownership
If a Local Internet Registry changes ownership because it is sold, or merges with another com- pany, the RIPE NCC should be contacted about the change in ownership. Depending on the case, the RIPE NCC may need to request a new service agreement from the new owners. Also, if all of the contact persons who will be sending requests have changed, the NCC may lower the assignment window of the registry until the new contacts are up-to-date on the RIPE NCC procedures and policies.
Sometimes a registry is taken over or merged with another, already existing registry. The RIPE NCC needs to be notified in this case as well. The reg- istries in question will need to discuss with the NCC what will be done with the allocations in case one of the registries is closing. An allocation can- not be transfered from one registry to another or to a non-registry without contacting the RIPE NCC first. A registry cannot have more than one open less than 80% used up allocation, so sometimes transfering all allocations is not possible. Please discuss these issues with <hostmaster@ripe.net>.
And here is the entire document itself. European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group Document ID: ripe-185 Date Published: July 23, 1998 Obsoletes: ripe-104, ripe-105, ripe-136, ripe-140, ripe-159 ABSTRACT The distribution of IP address space follows the hierarchical scheme described in RFC 1466 [Gerich93a]. For Europe and parts of the surrounding area address space is allocated by IANA to the RIPE NCC which acts as a regional Internet reg- istry. Address space is allocated by the RIPE NCC to Local Internet Registries IRs, who assign it to to end users. In this document, we describe the policies and procedures associated with address space management that must be followed by local IRs. Moreover, we present a number of services available to local IRs to sim- plify the tasks associated with address space management. 1. Scope This document describes the European Internet reg- istry system for the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and its operation. Particu- larly it describes the rules and guidelines govern- ing the distribution of this address space. The rules set forth in this document are binding for all address space allocated and assigned via the RIPE NCC. This document does not describe private Internet address space and multicast address space. This document does not describe local additions to the ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 1 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ European guidelines. While providing an overview about the global Internet registry system this docu- ment does not describe allocation and assignment rules used by other regional registries. This document has been produced by the RIPE Local Internet Registry LIR Working Group with the help of an editing committee consisting of: P. Caslav RIPE NCC S. Dolderer DE NIC D. Karrenberg RIPE NCC M. Kuehne RIPE NCC M. Norris HEANET C. Orange RIPE NCC W. Woeber ACONET J. Zsako Banknet H.P. Holen Schibsted Nett 1.1. Overview The main body of this document comprises eight sec- tions, with content as follows. Section 2 Internet Address Space and the Internet Registry System defines different types of IP address space and their purposes. It explains the goals used in assigning such addresses and outlines the hierarchical nature of the Internet Registry system used to achieve these goals. The important distinction between Provider Aggregatable and Provider Independent address space is also covered. Section 3 Address Space Assignment Procedures describes the procedures to be followed by European IP registries when assigning IP addresses to users. The importance of documentation is stressed, while the various elements of information required are explained in detail. Next, the criteria and stan- dards of evaluation are dealt with. Finally, the actual assignment of address space, of various kinds, is described, as are the accompanying steps which a registry must take. Section 4 Rules and Guidelines for Allocations explains how the RIPE NCC allocates IP address space to registries in an efficient and equitable manner and how the status and nature of such allocations are made publicly available in the RIPE database. Section 5 DNS and Reverse Address Mapping docu- ments the role of the RIPE NCC in providing reverse ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 2 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ delegation, and explains how registries can manage subsidiary reverse delegation of assigned address space. Section 6 Operating a Local Internet Registry describes a number of services offered by the RIPE NCC to facilitate the uniform implementation of the policies outlined in this document, and outlines procedures associated with IP registration services which Local IRs are expected to follow. Section 7 AS Number Assignment Policies and Proce- dures explains the procedures to be followed by European IP registries when requesting an autonomous system number. Section 8 Interdomain Exterior Routing Considera- tions discusses interdomain routing issues such as originating routing information; propagating routing announcements; aggregation and registering routes in the database and their role in defining the poli- cies regarding address space distribution described in this document. We conclude with a glossary in which the key terms used in this document are defined. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 3 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ 2. Internet Address Space and the Internet Registry System 2.1. Types of IP Addresses IP addresses for the purposes of this document are 32-bit binary numbers used as addresses in the IPv4 protocols. There are three main types of IP addresses Public Addresses The public IP addresses make up the Internet address space. They are assigned to be glob- ally unique according to the goals described in Section 2.2. The main purpose of this address space is to allow communication using IPv4 over the Internet. A secondary purpose is to allow communication using IPv4 over interconnected private internets. One can currently distin- guish two kinds of public addresses: provider independent PI and provider aggregatable PA addresses; see Section 2.4 for more details. More information about PI and PA address space can also be found in ripe-127 [ Karren- berg95a]. Private Addresses Some address ranges have been set aside for the operation of private networks using IP. Anyone can use these addresses in their private net- works without any registration or coordination. Hosts using these addresses can not be reached from the Internet. For a thorough description of private address space, please refer to RFC 1918 [Rekhter96b]. Special and Reserved Addresses There are a number of address ranges reserved for applications like multicasting. These are described elsewhere cf RFC 1112 [Deering89a] and are beyond the scope of this document. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 4 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ 2.2. Goals of Public Address Space Distribution In the remainder of this document, we are primarily concerned with the management of public Internet address space, as defined in the previous section. Every assignment of Internet addresses must guaran- tee that the following restriction is met. Uniqueness Each public Internet address worldwide must be unique. This is an absolute requirement which guaran- tees that every host on the Internet can be uniquely identified. In addition to the uniqueness requirement, pub- lic Internet address space assignments should be made with the following three goals in mind. Aggregation The distribution of public Internet addresses in a hierarchical manner, permitting the aggre- gation of routing information. This is neces- sary to ensure proper operation of Internet routing. This goal could also be called Routability. Conservation The fair distribution of public Internet address space according to the operational needs of the end users operating networks using this address space. In order to maximize the lifetime of the public Internet address space resource, addresses must be distributed accord- ing to need, and stockpiling must be prevented. Registration The provision of a public registry documenting address space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to pro- vide information for Internet trouble shooting at all levels. It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that these goals are pursued. It is worth noting that Conservation and Aggregation are often conflicting goals, and therefore that each ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 5 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ assignment must be evaluated carefully. Moreover, the above goals may occasionally be in conflict with the interests of individual end users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis and judgement are necessary in each individual case to find an appropriate compromise. The rules and guidelines in this document are intended to help Internet reg- istries and end users in their search for good com- promises. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 6 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ 2.3. The Internet Registry System The Internet Registry system has been established to achieve the goals stated in Section 2.2. It con- sists of hierarchically organized Internet Reg- istries IRs. Address space is typically assigned to end users by Local IRs. The address space assigned is taken from that allocated to the Local IR by the Regional IR. End users are those organi- zations operating networks in which the address space is used. The address space may, however, be requested by a consultant requester acting on behalf of the end user. Local IRs are typically operated by Internet Service Providers ISPs. Local IRs hold allocations of address space for assignment to end users. Assigned address space is actually used to operate networks, whereas allocated address space is held by IRs for future assignments to end users. To achieve both the conservation and aggregation goals, only IRs can hold allocations of address space. IANA The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has author- ity over all number spaces used in the Internet. This includes IP address space. IANA allocates pub- lic Internet address space to Regional IRs according to their established needs. Regional IRs Regional IRs operate in large geopolitical regions such as continents. To date, three Regional IRs have been established, namely the ARIN serving North America, the APNIC serving the Asian Pacific region, and the RIPE NCC serving Europe and surrounding areas. Since these do not cover all geographical areas, regional IRs also serve areas around their core service areas. The number of Regional IRs is expected to remain small. Regional IRs are established under the Authority of IANA. This requires consensus within the Internet community of the region. In particular, the ISPs in the region under consideration should be involved in the process. The duties of a regional IR include the coordination and representation of the Local IRs in its region. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 7 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ Local IRs Local IRs are established under the authority of a Regional IR. Local IRs are typically operated by ISPs and serve the customers of those ISPs as well as the customers of smaller ISPs who are connected to the rest of the Internet through the larger ISP. Other organizations such as large international Enterprises can also operate Local IRs. Much of this document is concerned with the respon- sibility of the Local IR in the assignment process. In some cases, the Local IR assigning the address space is not run by the ISP that will provide con- nectivity. It is important to note that maintenance of the administrative information regarding the assigned address space is the responsibility of the IR that makes the assignment, and not of the ISP providing the connectivity. Furthermore, only IRs can hold address allocations. End-Users Strictly speaking end users are not part of the IR system. They do, however, play an important role with respect to the goals defined above. In order to achieve the conservation goal, for example, end users should plan their networks to use a minimum amount of address space. They must document their addressing and deployment plans to the IR and fur- nish any additional information required by the IR for making assignment decisions. To achieve the aggregation goal, an end user should choose an appropriate Local IR. End users should be aware that changing ISPs may require replacing addresses in their networks. Finally end users must provide and update registration data for the address space assigned to them. Requesters In addition to these key players in the Internet Registry System, there are often consultants who setup and manage networks for end users. The consul- tants may be the people actually submitting a request for address space to an IR on behalf of an end user. We refer to the person making the request for an end user as a requester, whether that person is employed by the organization, or is simply acting on behalf of the organization with respect to the address space request. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 8 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ The European IR System For Europe, the Internet Registry System hierarchy consists of the following entities from the top down: IANA, the RIPE NCC, and Local IRs. 2.4. Provider Independent vs Provider Aggregatable Addresses Provider Aggregatable Address Space Local IRs operated by Internet service providers are allocated Provider Aggregatable PA address space which they assign to their end users. This is done in such a way that routing information for many end users of an ISP can be aggregated on the borders of the providers routing domain. This keeps the num- ber of routes and state changes in the interdomain routing system between providers at an acceptable level. The cost of propagating a relatively small number of aggregated routes is much lower than that of propagating each end users individual routes throughout the entire interdomain routing system. If an end user changes service providers, their PA address space will have to be replaced. As a conse- quence, all hosts and routers at the end users organization will have to be reconfigured. The end user will need to obtain a new address space assign- ment, and return the previously assigned address space. To ensure the address space is properly returned, a clear, preferably contractual, under- standing is needed between the Local IR and the end user. The agreement should state that the assignment of the address space becomes invalid when the provider no longer provides Internet connectivity to the end user or shortly thereafter. The goal of this arrangement is to minimize the load on the interdomain routing system. If the end user continued to use PA address space obtained from their previous service provider when connecting to another service provider, their routing information could not be aggregated and would have to be propa- gated separately throughout the whole interdomain routing system. Provider Independent Address Space In contrast to PA address space, PI address space can remain assigned to its user as long as the ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 9 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ criteria for the original assignment are met. The duration of the assignment is independent of the use of a particular providers services. The apparent advantage of PI address space is that a users hosts and routers need not be reconfigured if the user decides to change service providers. However, PI addresses are expensive to route because no use can be made of aggregation. All early Internet address space assignments were provider independent. Many assignments made by Local IRs are also formally provider independent due to a lack of prior agree- ments between ISP and the end user that the assign- ment will be terminated when the service is. Validity of assignment Assignments of any kind of address space are valid as long as the original criteria on which the assignment was based are still valid. If an assign- ment is made for a specific purpose and the purpose no longer exists, then the assignment is no longer valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be invalid so is the assignment. ____________________________________________________ ripe-185.txt Page 10 European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group ____________________________________________________ 3. Address Space Assignment Procedures 3.1. Introduction In this section, we describe the procedures to be followed by Local IRs when assigning address space to their users. We start with a description of the information to be gathered from the user. The pur- pose of the information gathering is twofold. First, the information is required to make address assign- ment decisions, with respect to the aggregation and conservation goals. Second, the information is required for registration purposes. We go on to describe how this information should be evaluated to make appropriate assignments, and introduce additional considerations that may be essential in the assignment decision. Finally we specify the procedures to be followed in the assign- ment process. Before going into the factors in the assignment pro- cess, we start with some general background informa- tion and policies that determine the information to be gathered, and the procedures to be followed. Address space is assigned by IRs to end users who use it to operate the specific networks described in an address space request. IRs guarantee that no other end user will be assigned the same address space during the validity of the assignment. An assignment is valid as long as the criteria on which it is based remain valid. In accordance with the conservation goal, end users are not permitted to reserve address space. Evalua- tion of IP address space requests must be based on the documentation provided for the following 24 months, as specified in the current address space usage template and in the addressing plan as described in the next section. The amount of address space assigned must be justified by this documenta- tion. This means that address space assigned in the past should be used to meet the current request if possible. Once an organisation has used its assigned address space, it can request