Hi Mirjam mind if I piggy-back on Wilfried's comments? I'll use !!! instead of *** if that's OK.

Good stuff!

Yes indeed!

. I'm slightly unhappy with the frequent use of the terms "class A" and "class C". I think we are trying for a while now to sort of phase-out the usage of these terms. So I'd prefer to

- clearly qualify the usage of these terms as obsolete, or "old classful terminology",

- wherever possible, please replace "class x" with the appropriate address range. I think this would make the paper more obvious anyway.

Not an easy one. Sure, you can put the offending terms in quotes, as Wilfried does, to indicate disdain for this old politically incorrect terminology. But there's no getting away from the fact that when you say Class A in the document, you really mean Class A and not /8 - you don't mean that 196.0.0.0/8, for example, comes under the heading of Class A for the purposes of special allocation. Instead of Class A, you could say "addresses in the range 1.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255" or something, but this could be clumsy and why not use the term that means the same, anyway.

. While in general there is a one-to-one correspondance of Local-IR and ISP (routing-wise), I think we could be a bit more careful to refer to a Local-IR when we talk about assignments, and to refer to the routing or operations group of an ISP when talking about routing/operations.

Good point. Cheers. Mike Temporary Special Class A Space Guidelines Kuehne, Karrenberg D R A F T ____________________________________________________ Temporary Special Guidelines for Allocation and Assignment of address space out of class A ranges. Mirjam Kuehne Daniel Karrenberg Background Before the introduction of classless inter-domain routing CIDR [RFC1519] the unicast IP address space was divided into three ranges called A, B and C each assotiated with a routing prefix length of 8, 16 and 24 bits respectively. In this context IP addresses are often called class A, B or C addresses depending on the range. With CIDR the prefix length informa- tion is carried in the routing protocols and it is technically insignificant which particular range an address belongs to. Whenever classful routing protocols or obsolete *** proposal ^^^^^^^^ As long as ... TCP/IP host implementations are being used the class *** ^^^^^ "class" (as implied by the particular range) of the address can become significant because either it determines prefix length in routing or other assumptions are being made from the class of the address. Classful software can be configured to work properly by using subnetting [RFC950] or basing configurations on the prefix length implied by the address class. The Internet registires have been assigning ***typo ^^^ !!! maybe say "The Internet registries, regional and local, have been...." ***proposal addresses out of the class C range for the last cou- ^^^ <insert values here, please> ple of years because this was believed to cause the least problems with obsolete classful software on the perimeter of the Internet. !!!It's been more than a couple (which means 'two') of years, more like five years. However there is only a limited amount of unallo- cated class C address space available. More than 50% of the class C address space is allocated and some parts of the remaining ranges are reserved by IANA. Currently the largest amount of unallocated addresses ***proposal is of class A. Therefore regional Internet registries ^^^ <insert values here, please> will at some point have to use allocations from class A space. In April 1995 an experiment started to find out if classless use of the former class A addresses (1.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255) would create any signifi- cant problems wrt routing. The aim of this experiment ^^^ !!! spell it out - 'with respect to' ____________________________________________________ Page 1  Temporary Special Class A Space Guidelines Kuehne, Karrenberg D R A F T ____________________________________________________ is described in RFC1797. The experiment ran for 6 month and was considered ***typo a success.The results of are described in RFC1879 ^^^^^^ including possible problems and solutions. RIPE Community Initiative To promote the use of classless addressing the RIPE NCC has taken initiative to give local IRs in its ^ !!! insert 'the' service region a choice of allocations either from class C or class A space. At the 26th RIPE meeting held in Amsterdam in Jan- uary 1997 the RIPE community welcomed this initia- tive and expressed their interest in assigning this type of addresses to their customers. There was consensus that in order to encourage usage of class A address space, allocation and assignment guide- lines for this space should be temporarily relaxed if IANA and the other regional IRs agree to this. The RIPE NCC was asked to make a proposal. !!! Hmm, I'm not too sure about this "temporary relaxed" bit. The document we adopted and use (rip1-140) is called "European Internet Registry **Policies and Procedures**" (my emphasis). Policies, I think, have a slightly higher status than guidelines. Anyway, here's what was reported the LIR WG mtg at RIPE 26: A question arose as to whether Local IRs would be able to ease the requirements associated with address space assignments in order to encourage their customers to take an assignment from Class A space. There was *no* consensus on this issue, and it was therefore decided that the normal policies apply at least until further discussion can take place. So the normal policies should continue. What you are proposing now is in addition to the normal policies. ripe-140 was written and adopted in the context of the current RIPE NCC allocation and that allocation (193.0.0.0/8, 194.0.0.0/8 and 195.0.0.0/8) is specified in the text. I think it would be helpful if the proposal were framed as an addition or adjunct to the current policies and not a relaxation of policies. You say this two paragraphs down, so maybe reword the above along the same lines. The following sections will describe the special allocation procedures the RIPE NCC proposes. Special Allocation Rules From April 1997 until December 1997 special guide- lines will apply to the allocation and assignment of class A address space. These guidelines are addi- tions to the normal procedures [ripe-140]. ***sugg. ^^^^^^ regular? basic? During this time every orgnisation established as a ***typo ^^^^ ***proposal <remove the phrase "organisation established as a", unless it refers to something special which I don't understand?> !!! suggestion: "During this time, any organisation established as a LIR in the service region of the RIPE NCC..." LIR in the service reigion of he RIPE NCC may ***typo ^^^^ request an additional allocation of class A address space. This means for a limited amount of time each LIR can ***sugg. ^^^^ any ? hold two allocations of the same size: one from class C address space (currently 195.0.0.0/8) and one from class A (to be allocated by IANA). * In order to limit the adverse effect of these spe- * cial allocations on routing table growth, global * routing annnouncements for this address space should * be kept at an absolute minimum. Ideally each allo- * cation will be announced via just one prefix. Addi- * tional prefixes should only be announced globally if * this is technically necessary. ***question what is the special case for assignments out of the traditional class A space, as compared to any other "regular" assignment by way of the regional and local regsitries? Once a LIR has obtained an allocation from class A space in addition to an already existing allocation *** sugg. ^^^^^^^ <remove> ____________________________________________________ Page 2  Temporary Special Class A Space Guidelines Kuehne, Karrenberg D R A F T ____________________________________________________ from class C space the following rules apply: 1. If the address space from the class A alloca- ***sugg. ^^^ a tion is entireley assigned, another class A ^^^^^^^^^^ !!!entirely allocation can be requested. 2. If the address space from the class C alloca- ***sugg. ^^^ a tion is entirely assigned, another class A or class C allocation can be requested. This means that a LIR can have two class A alloca- tions or one allocation of each class but never two class C allocations. After the expiration of the special period the usual allocation policies apply, i.e. every LIR can only hold one free alocation of a maximum of a /16 at a ***quest., typo ^^^^ <what is a "free" allocation?> time. This means that first all allocations the LIR has at this point in time must be finished before additional address space can be allocated. * If the LIR has at this point decided that it will * not continue assigning from class A address space it * has the possibility to return the class A alloca- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!! suggest "has the option of returning..." * tion. It can then request an additional class C * allocation once the previously allocated class C * addresses are assigned entirely. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!! suggest "are entirely assigned." * ***question wrt to routing table size, is the LIR expected to return the whole block, including the assigned componentes, or just the subset which has not yet been assigned? I'd propose to reclaim the whole block. Special Assignment Guidelines In order to motivate not only LIRs to use class A ***sugg. ^^^^ <I think this is targetting ISPs (routing-wise) and end-users. Strictly speaking, for the LIR it's just numbers and the LIR shouldn't care :-).> address space but also end-users to use class A address space in their networks special assignment policies apply until the end of the special period. 1. A temporary assignment from class A space in addition to an already existing assignment from ***proposal ^^^^ class C address space can be made without ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <remove that phrase, *unless* you explicitely want to restrict that simplified approach to applicants that do not hold (A or) B space. I think it would be a good idea *not* exclude that scenario!> detailed documentation so that the end-user can experiment with these addresses. 2. This additional assignment can have up to the same size of the total previously assigned address space but not more than a /19. ____________________________________________________ Page 3  Temporary Special Class A Space Guidelines Kuehne, Karrenberg D R A F T ____________________________________________________ * 3. The class A address space must be returned by * the end-user to the appropriate Internet reg- * istry 6 months after the assignment or the * usage of the addresses must be documented prop- * erly according to normal assignment rules * [ripe-141]. * ***proposal < - duration of temporary assignement can be agreed with the end-user and/or specified by the LIR - validity expires at the end of the special period - if the LIR decides to continue to assign addresses from class A space allocation, then assignment has to be converted to a regular assignment. -----> for the else-clause, please see previous comment! - conversion to a regular assignment involves submitting documentation according to ripe-whatever, and adjusting the size of the assignment if necessary. > Note: As per these rules address space assign- ments can be justified by returning an equiva- lent ammount of addresses as well as by docu- ^^^^^^^ !!! amount menting new use. 4. The LIR is obliged to clearly inform the address space user about the special rules that apply to the additional assignment before it is made. LIRs are encouraged to advise users to plan ahead. *** quest. ^^^^^^^^^^ <what?> 5. All assignments no matter from wich allocation ^^^^ !!! which must be registerd in the RIPE database. Conclusion In order to promote classless addressing and to address the shortage of class C address space, the RIPE NCC proposes to give all LIRs in its service region the chance to prepare for the final transi- tion to classless addressing and the use of class A address space. This document proposes to create special guidelines for addresses from class A space until the end of * 1997. After this period it is expected that most * registries are prepared to assign class A address space * to their customers as as well as to their own networks. * ***comment: This sort of vaguely contradicts the (implied) freedom, as outlined by this paper, to decline future allocations from former class A space and to stick with the class C range? Another comment: given that the proposal is for a limited special allocation, but that the goals are more long-term, would it be useful to suggest a review at the end of the special period to measure progress towards the goals. M