Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal
"Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * 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? Yes, it is. Regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina@ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o * ----- 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 * 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 * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > * > * Mailing List: hostmaster-staff * * > * Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net * * > * * *
On Thursday 27 September 2001 18:11, you wrote:
"Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * 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?
Is this your request for new space when 80% of your current space has been declared used or when you have allocated 80% of your space? Regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/
On Friday 28 September 2001 09:39, you wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2001 18:11, you wrote:
"Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * 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?
Is this your request for new space when 80% of your current space has been declared used or when you have allocated 80% of your space?
Woops - I cut too much, this was meant to be in reply to Sabrina's "Yes, it is". Sorry for any confusion. aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/
Dear Adrian, At 11:18 28/09/01 +0100, Adrian Bool wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2001 09:39, you wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2001 18:11, you wrote:
"Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * 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?
Is this your request for new space when 80% of your current space has been declared used or when you have allocated 80% of your space?
Woops - I cut too much, this was meant to be in reply to Sabrina's "Yes, it is".
When 80% is currently *allocated* out of the RIPE NCC address blocks, we request additional addresses from IANA. It is unclear about what you mean with "declared used" , however, we do not wait until all LIRs have *assigned* all addresses from their allocations before we request additional address space. In other words, when we have less than 20% free address space to allocate from, a request is sent to IANA. Hope this answered your question. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------*
Sorry for any confusion.
aid
-- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/
Hi Nurani, On Friday 28 September 2001 11:42, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
At 11:18 28/09/01 +0100, Adrian Bool wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2001 09:39, you wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2001 18:11, you wrote:
"Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * 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?
Is this your request for new space when 80% of your current space has been declared used or when you have allocated 80% of your space?
Woops - I cut too much, this was meant to be in reply to Sabrina's "Yes, it is".
When 80% is currently *allocated* out of the RIPE NCC address blocks, we request additional addresses from IANA. It is unclear about what you mean with "declared used" , however, we do not wait until all LIRs have *assigned* all addresses from their allocations before we request additional address space. In other words, when we have less than 20% free address space to allocate from, a request is sent to IANA.
Hope this answered your question.
Yes, that was very useful. I think this is the whole crux of the situation. Stephen (as fas I can tell), undoubtedly like many others (myself included), would like to act as a registry to the in-country operations of our respective networks. Although both RIRs such as RIPE and LIRs such as myself are subject to 80% rules for the acquisition of more IP space, it seems we are subject to different 80% rules. For an RIR, it is 80% of their allocations, and for the LIRs it is 80% of assigned space. This makes a huge difference, as assignees of an RIR are orthogonal - the usage of one does not effect the allocation of another. With the assignees of an LIR this is not the case, as the actual usage of one assignee within the LIR effects the abilty of another assignee to aquire more space when it is right and proper for them to do so. I feel that international networks require the ability to operate according to the same rules as RIPE - just working on a smaller scale - as another level down in the hierarchy. i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks - natuarally in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would allocate space to these in-country networks. Regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/
Hi, On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:05:41PM +0100, Adrian Bool wrote:
I feel that international networks require the ability to operate according to the same rules as RIPE - just working on a smaller scale - as another level down in the hierarchy.
Not only "international networks", but also national ones that have a hierarchical structure of re-sellers.
i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks - natuarally in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would allocate space to these in-country networks.
Sure. 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
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Adrian Bool wrote:
i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks - natuarally in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would allocate space to these in-country networks.
Actually, there was a proopsal for introducing "status: LIR-ALLOCATED", that should allow such a thing. It's under implementation. Any news on the progress of that? Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior NOC Specialist -------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------ ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri@kpnqwest.net <=> beri@EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----
Yes indeed. We will send out a mail later today with the details of this proposal. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno RIPE NCC At 14:21 28/09/01 +0200, Berislav Todorovic wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Adrian Bool wrote:
i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks - natuarally in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would allocate space to these in-country networks.
Actually, there was a proopsal for introducing "status: LIR-ALLOCATED", that should allow such a thing. It's under implementation.
Any news on the progress of that?
Regards, Beri
--------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior NOC Specialist -------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------ ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri@kpnqwest.net <=> beri@EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----
Yes indeed. We will send out a mail later today with the details of this proposal.
Kind regards,
Nurani Nimpuno RIPE NCC
At 14:21 28/09/01 +0200, Berislav Todorovic wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Adrian Bool wrote:
i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks - natuarally in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would allocate space to these in-country networks.
Actually, there was a proopsal for introducing "status: LIR-ALLOCATED",
Thanks for your reply Adrian, beginning to think i was the only one really needing this structure. I hope the details of this proposal are taking into consideration the need for bigger contiguous space allocations and not just the ability to sub allocate. Look forward to the details of the proposal. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nurani Nimpuno" <nurani@ripe.net> To: <registry@EU.net>; "Adrian Bool" <aid@vianw.net> Cc: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal that
should allow such a thing. It's under implementation.
Any news on the progress of that?
Regards, Beri
--------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior NOC Specialist -------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------ ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri@kpnqwest.net <=> beri@EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----
participants (6)
-
Adrian Bool -
Berislav Todorovic -
Gert Doering -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Sabrina Waschke -
Stephen Burley