Hi Before i start the proposal i would like to ask a question, what ever happened to the Organisation object? Was is ever put in the DB? If not why not? as i am sure it got concensus. Ok the proposal. Background: We the evil UUNET/WorldCom in Europe have only one nework. AS702 covers all of our existing networks and is numbered out of all the LIR's we currently run - 17 in total - so AS702 is really a non contiguous AS with 120,000 routes. Back in the old days it was never invisaged that networks would ever get this large and the current concept of conservation, conservation, conservation, aggregation does not really support very large networks - i am not against conservation of IPv4 it just needs a fresh look. This proposal by definition will not appeal to all and will most certinly cause some to view this whole idea as "UUNET trying to use its muscle", believe me its not. We have to look at this proposal in the context of a very large network desperate the reduce the amount of prefixes on the routers before we hit the memory wall on routers and just the shear logistics of managing the aggreagation internal and external and assignment policies. We like to concept of Supernational Registries but all that really does is lump all of your current LIR bills into one and does not really help the aggregation issues as the growth patterns in differant registries are vast and range from near stagnent due to country specific reasons to the explosive growth, with various levels in between. This means that as a SuperNational it would be impossable to aggregate and reach 80% usage over the registries CIDR. The process of aggregation would force the planning of sub-allocation to give more than the immediate needed IPspace to allow for growth, much the same way RIPE does now when allocating to large LIR's and new LIR's. They will allocate a /20 and mark the contiguous /20 as "use last" this same pattern of sub-allocation needs to happen a level below RIR's and above LIR's - the MIR (multinational internet registry). The multinational registry (MIR) is not a means by which a large comapany with a very large network would have an advantage over LIR's. The LIR structure is still needed to provide local knowledge assignment and local aggregation, it will not replace LIR's just manage the overall aggregation of a large block of IP space and sub-allocate to them. It will not be limited by the 80% usage constraint but that by no way gives the MIR a free hand. Rather than being constrained by a fixed number (the numbers would have to be realistic) the MIR is governed by business nedds and routing requirements which the NCC would have to be informed of and understand. This does not mean the MIR ignore all of RIPE policy ie. /20 for startups etc. rather we self manage the policies (as we do now) as the NCC does but the IP blocks are allocated out of one very large block say a /11 in accordance with current assignment policy. A /11 i here you gasp, well a /11 is not an unreasonable size we have more than that now. If we knew now how big the network was to get then we probably would have created this sort of concept from day one, one thing we can be sure of its not going to shrink. Just think how much better all our routing tables would be if we could renumber into a single larger contiguous block, but we can not. This problem is not going to go away and IPV4 will be around for a while yet so rather than compounding the problem by continuing in this blinkered fashion of fragmenting large networks i think we should take this fresh look at the way the current admin structure is interfering with current network planning, with commercial impacts that brings. Looking a little into the future i think this structure would help with IPV6 too. The only differance is we know how big the networks are and what we need to create a well aggregated IPV6 network now with MIR's. Summary: Please do not look at this and close your mind because it does not affect your network it may do one day. From a purely community oriented spirit it is meant to try and improve overall aggregation, from a purely buiness point of view it makes sense to add another level of managment without complicating it but only for those who need it. RIR - Would still continue to admin the IP space for both MIR's and LIR's for the good of the community. MIR - Would manage the allocation (large ) from RIR and suballocate to LIR's aggregating the network correctly but be responsible to RIR for their actions LIR - Would assign space to infrastructure and customers as usual but would either be directly in contact with the NCC or via the MIR. I hope this does not cause too much controversie it is not my intention. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
Hi, On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 03:13:03PM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote:
Ok the proposal. [..]
I can understand your needs, and your proposal is a way to tackle it. The problems do not only arise on "multinational scale", though. We're a small-to-medium ISP/LIR (with only about 1.5 /16's), and we're also facing the fact that we'd like to do better hierarchical routing, facing a structure of independent re-sellers that again have their own re-sellers, all of them getting their IP addresses from us. So what I could imagine is a less formal organization structure without a "MIR" - but permit LIRs, under certain circumstances, to do sub-allocations, like "*allocate* a /22 to this reseller and /21 to that one". Maybe a combination of both. A MIR + LIR structure for the Really Huge networks, and LIR + sub-allocations for smaller networks with a need (or the desire) for hierarchical structure. And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
<CUT> Hi Gert,
And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this. An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to resellers/downstreams. I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room we have to play with. I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that defines who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet concept to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub- allocate. I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure how it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get their IP addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional registry I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream. John Crain
----- Original Message ----- From: "John L Crain" <crain@icann.org> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: MIR proposal
<CUT>
Hi Gert,
And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this. An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to resellers/downstreams.
I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room we have to play with.
We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that defines who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet
concept
to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub- allocate.
Its not so different from the RIR model.
I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure how it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get their IP addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional registry I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they would not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with the NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not to other ISP's or customers direct. BTW Nice to hear from you.
John Crain
Stephen seems just wants to solve UUNET problem with proposing MIR. However I am agree basically with the Idea. APNIC has added NIR ( National Internet Registry ) to the hierarchy. I think RIPE must let the NIRs as well. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> To: <crain@icann.org>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: 06/09/2001 7:40 È.Ù Subject: Re: MIR proposal
----- Original Message ----- From: "John L Crain" <crain@icann.org> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: MIR proposal
<CUT>
Hi Gert,
And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this. An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to
I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room
we
have to play with.
We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that
defines
who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet concept to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub- allocate.
Its not so different from the RIR model.
I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure how it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get their IP addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional registry I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they would not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with
resellers/downstreams. the
NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not to other ISP's or customers direct. BTW Nice to hear from you.
John Crain
hi,
Stephen seems just wants to solve UUNET problem with proposing MIR. However I am agree basically with the Idea. APNIC has added NIR ( National Internet Registry ) to the hierarchy. I think RIPE must let the NIRs as well.
Just a note about this. The membership category of NIR actually does not relate in any way to the specific problem that Stephen is trying to address which is that of large multinational organisations routed under one AS, having discontiguous IP address allocations through the establishment of many LIRs. In fact, the NIR model actually does nothing for aggregation - as NIRs receive a block which they further allocate to their members who run businesses within a particular country. The members in those countries served by NIRs are more likely to receive discontiguous blocks (simply because the NIRs have a smaller pool), thus not contributing to aggregation of routing information at all. We are working with the NIRs to solve this with a referral process for allocations directly from APNIC for the very large members of NIRs. Of course, having access to a local language service is very much on the plus side of having NIRs. For the record though, the NIRs exist under the confederation membership category. This also includes ISP confederations as well as NIRs. The two are *very* different entities, so the confederation category has been suspended until we work out a better solution. While I agree totally with Stephens objective and understand the motivation, the proposal needs detail. How would it work exactly? APNIC's ISP confederation model which tried to address the same thing, did not work, and gave unfair advantages to the ISP confederations. (Part of the reason the 'confederation' category has been suspended). It is definately a laudable challenge to try to produce a model and procedures such that the policies are fairly applied to all. regards Anne _____________________________________________________________________ Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison <anne@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3367 0490 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3367 0482 _____________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> To: <crain@icann.org>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: 06/09/2001 7:40 �.� Subject: Re: MIR proposal
----- Original Message ----- From: "John L Crain" <crain@icann.org> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: MIR proposal
<CUT>
Hi Gert,
And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this. An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to
I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room
we
have to play with.
We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that
defines
who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet concept to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub- allocate.
Its not so different from the RIR model.
I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure how it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get their IP addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional registry I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they would not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with
resellers/downstreams. the
NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not to other ISP's or customers direct. BTW Nice to hear from you.
John Crain
* Mailing List: hostmaster-staff * * Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net *
A question to the NCC or any other registry managers: What is the criteria by which the RIR's request space from IANA, is it an 80% usage rule? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Lord" <anne@apnic.net> To: "Hamid Alipour" <alipour@mail.dci.co.ir> Cc: <lir-wg@ripe.net>; "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal hi,
Stephen seems just wants to solve UUNET problem with proposing MIR. However I am agree basically with the Idea. APNIC has added NIR ( National Internet Registry ) to the hierarchy. I think RIPE must let the NIRs as well.
Just a note about this. The membership category of NIR actually does not relate in any way to the specific problem that Stephen is trying to address which is that of large multinational organisations routed under one AS, having discontiguous IP address allocations through the establishment of many LIRs. In fact, the NIR model actually does nothing for aggregation - as NIRs receive a block which they further allocate to their members who run businesses within a particular country. The members in those countries served by NIRs are more likely to receive discontiguous blocks (simply because the NIRs have a smaller pool), thus not contributing to aggregation of routing information at all. We are working with the NIRs to solve this with a referral process for allocations directly from APNIC for the very large members of NIRs. Of course, having access to a local language service is very much on the plus side of having NIRs. For the record though, the NIRs exist under the confederation membership category. This also includes ISP confederations as well as NIRs. The two are *very* different entities, so the confederation category has been suspended until we work out a better solution. While I agree totally with Stephens objective and understand the motivation, the proposal needs detail. How would it work exactly? APNIC's ISP confederation model which tried to address the same thing, did not work, and gave unfair advantages to the ISP confederations. (Part of the reason the 'confederation' category has been suspended). It is definately a laudable challenge to try to produce a model and procedures such that the policies are fairly applied to all. regards Anne _____________________________________________________________________ Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison <anne@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3367 0490 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3367 0482 _____________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> To: <crain@icann.org>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: 06/09/2001 7:40 È.Ù Subject: Re: MIR proposal
----- Original Message ----- From: "John L Crain" <crain@icann.org> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: MIR proposal
<CUT>
Hi Gert,
And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of
isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this. An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to resellers/downstreams.
I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room we have to play with.
We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that
defines
who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet concept to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub- allocate.
Its not so different from the RIR model.
I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure how it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get
ours their
IP
addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional registry I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they would not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with the NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not to other ISP's or customers direct. BTW Nice to hear from you.
John Crain
* Mailing List: hostmaster-staff * * Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net *
participants (5)
-
Anne Lord -
Gert Doering -
Hamid Alipour -
John L Crain -
Stephen Burley