[ Moderator note: changed local-ir@ripe.net -> lir-wg@ripe.net ] Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question: Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!! Any comment? Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran Saeed.
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:58:47AM +0330, SAEED KHADEMI wrote:
[ Moderator note: changed local-ir@ripe.net -> lir-wg@ripe.net ]
Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question:
Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!!
Any comment?
Some thoughts on this from me, not neccesarely the truth. As LIR they can say that if you don't return space, you have to much space, so the request isn't justified. If the customer can proof he has the need for both chunks of space ... As an ISP you can (and should) refuse the customer to route his ip-space from his old provider. Both together mean that in the ordinary case of a customer migrating from one ISP to another they can force the customer to return his old space. Regards, Andre
My personal thoughts about this: As a LIR technician you should know: This is perfectly legal because inescapable. According to RIPE regulations, you have to return your addresses when you drop the connection to a LIR. Only addresses which can be reached from Internet directly may continue to exist and PA addresses from another ISP are never reachable from Internet. As the addresses are PA and not PI you have to renumber your network. The customer has to be made aware of this fact by the LIR. In case the customer wasn't informed about this fact that changing the uplink provider means to change IPs too, this is a problem between the old uplink and the customer and not about the new uplink, as the new uplink cannot be held responsible for errors somebody other did. This even holds in case that the customer has 2 or more independent Internet connections. In this case the customer should switch to BGP4 and do following: a) Get some PI address space. I cannot recommend this as PI address space is not as good as PA and you cannot be sure that all ISPs in the world accept announcements with a higher prefix than /20. From reachability point of view PI addresses are definitively a problem if you care about the fact that one might have to provide best possible service to the customers. If you can ignore that perhaps you cannot reach some weird edges in asia or so, then take PI, but be sure to get a least a /24 block. I know someone myself who is happy with his /23 PI block. And with PI you never have to renumber if you change your uplink. b) Get some PA address space and redistribute it into BGP4. I cannot recommend this as PA addresses have the problem that many ISPs filter them according to the routing database. And I as a BGP4 sysop would ignore smaller aggregations in routing entries, as they are redundant or maybee an error. As a result the IPs don't take the shortest path back to the customer which may lead to higher costs at the customer's side. Besides the higher costs redistributing PA into BGP4 should have no bad sideeffect (or am I not aware of something?). In Europe the possibly higher imposed cost factor is so extreme, that I definitively can only discourage from using PA for BGP4 redistribution (in case you have M uplinks it my be that you have M times the traffic price when M-1 of your uplink lines go down). Another bad fact is that with PA you have to renumber when you drop the link to the LIR which issued the IPs. c) Become your own LIR. I can recommed this in case that you go multihomed with your own AS and don't want to renumber any more in future. Note that this is exactly what I am currently doing here ;) OK, that's my opinion, but I am no lawyer. -Tino PS: I send this to the list even that I read the other posts ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "SAEED KHADEMI" <saeed@vax.ipm.ac.ir> To: <local-ir@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:28 AM Subject: A Question
[ Moderator note: changed local-ir@ripe.net -> lir-wg@ripe.net ]
Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question:
Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!!
Any comment?
Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran Saeed.
Dear all, Thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. We have seen some good advice. This is our contribution to clarify the policy. Firstly, end users are not restricted by the number of ISPs they connect to as long as the IP address space they use is for different purposes. It has been correctly pointed out that end users can and do apply to a 2nd provider for an additional connection for whatever reasons (i.e. load balancing) so they can apply to use addresses from this 2nd provider for these purposes. However, should an end user migrate from one LIR to another we would expect them to return their old assignment. If the new LIR has no assignment-window (AW) the request will have to be sent to us for our evaluation. We would expect the current address space to be documented in the Current Usage Template, plus comments on the changes in the network with the new LIR. But remember to write contracts with your customers. Use the paragraphs from ripe-127, irrespective of the type of address space you are assigning (PA/PI). At end of the day LIRs have different approaches to deal with different situations and that is their business. Here are the relevant sections of the European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures (RIPE-185) and our emphasis on important sentences : http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html 3.5.Replacing IP Addresses [..] 3.5.Replacing IP Addresses While the procedures for numbering and renumbering hosts in an IP network are becoming less troublesome, ASKING OR FORCING END USERS TO RENUMBER IS SOMETIMES PROBLEMATIC. The renumbering process usually requires a considerable amount of time and effort both on the part of the end users and on the part of the ISPs and Local IRs involved. In some cases, there is a clear obligation to replace address space assignments, and LOCAL IRs SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THEIR CUSTOMERS IN THE PROCESS. A more general and very important case is the (voluntary) replacement of PI address space which for historical reasons has been randomly assigned and cannot be aggregated with other PA assignments. Such replacements can play a key role in containing the GROWTH OF ROUTING TABLES, and thus for the maintainability of the Internet as a whole. Because the renumbering process is nontrivial, the Internet Registry System as a whole must support the process as far as possible. During the period in which end users migrate individual services or parts of their networks to the new address space, complications may arise. In many cases, they may need to be CONNECTED TO MORE THAN ONE ISP FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD, and sometimes ADDRESSES FROM BOTH THE OLD RANGE(S) AND THE NEW MIGHT HAVE TO BE MANAGED AND USED IN PARALLEL. With the goals of aggregation and conservation in mind, as well as to minimise duplicate logistics, this period should be kept as short as possible. IP Address Space Replacement Procedures: IN GENERAL, ADDRESS SPACE SHOULD BE REPLACED ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS. An assignment of PA space to replace previously assigned PI space can be made if the original assignment criteria are still met and if the address space to be replaced is currently used for the end user's network. Only if a large percentage of the original assignment is not in use (50% or more than 4096 addresses) will an end user be required to submit the usual documentation to the new registry. This part of the request is then treated like any other request for assignment of additional addresses. The address space to be replaced (the individual address ranges and the total size) must be properly documented with the standard IP address space assignment request forms. For address space that was allocated by Local IRs established within the framework of the RIPE NCC, a copy of the documentation is forwarded to the registry or registries that assigned the address space being replaced. Before assigning the new address space, an agreement (preferably contractual) should be reached regarding the maximum period within which the previously assigned addresses will be returned to the original registry or to the regional registry for eventual reassignment. After the renumbering is complete, the database must be updated to reflect the changes. Whenever a large amount of addresses are to be replaced (the equivalent of a /20 or more) the Regional IR must be informed about the intended replacement and the agreements on the maximum period of parallel assignments. In complex cases, the Regional IR may decide to provide guidance in the process of managing the address space replacement. In general A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE END USER TO COMPLETE THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW ADDRESSES. RFC 2008 "Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing" [Rekhter96a] recommends a grace period of at least 30 days, and no longer than six months. For exceptional cases, where the end user requests to keep both assignments for more than 6 months, approval should be obtained for the proposed time frame from the RIPE NCC. For those addresses that have not been assigned by a Local IR, or which were assigned by an IR that has since closed, the Regional IR will act in lieu of the original registry. 3.5.1.Multihomed Users AN END USER MAY HAVE REASON TO OBTAIN CONNECTIVITY THROUGH MORE THAN ONE SERVICE PROVIDER. IF SO, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN ADDRESS SPACE ASSIGNMENTS FROM MORE THAN ONE IR TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE USER'S NETWORK. IN GENERAL, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH USERS ACQUIRING ADDRESS SPACE AND SERVICE FROM MORE THAN ONE IR. THEIR NETWORKS ARE THEN REFERRED TO AS MULTIHOMED. Because users can be multihomed, IRs must be especially careful in reviewing address space requests, and the corresponding CURRENT ADDRESS SPACE USAGE described in section 3.2.1.2. One must be sure that USERS ARE NOT ACQUIRING MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FROM DIFFERENT IRs. Moreover, one must check that a similar address space request has not been refused by another IR for some valid reason. Kind regards, Eamonn McGuinness RIPE NCC Hostmaster Team Leader Go faster ! http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/tips/tips.html http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/index.html WebAsused ! http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20001001-20010101/msg00029.htm... In message <009F72F3.75DCBE02.1@ROSE.IPM.AC.IR>you write:
[ Moderator note: changed local-ir@ripe.net -> lir-wg@ripe.net ]
Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question:
Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!!
Any comment?
Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran Saeed.
participants (4)
-
Andre Koopal -
Eamonn McGuinness -
SAEED KHADEMI -
Valentin Hilbig