[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 2050) 01 02 RFC 7020

Network Working Group                                         R. Housley
Internet-Draft                                       Vigil Security, LLC
Obsoletes: 2050 (if approved)                                  J. Curran
Intended status: Informational                                      ARIN
Expires: October 08, 2013                                      G. Huston
                                                                   APNIC
                                                               D. Conrad
                                                        Virtualized, LLC
                                                           April 8, 2013

                  The Internet Numbers Registry System
                    draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt

Abstract

   This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers
   Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet
   Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.

   This document also provides information about the processes for
   further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.

   This document replaces RFC 2050.

   This document does not propose any changes to the Internet Numbers
   Registry System.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 08, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  Internet Numbers Registry System Structure . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations . . . . . .  4
   5.  Internet Numbers Registry Evolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     10.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     10.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

1.  Introduction

   The administrative structures of the Internet Numbers Registry System
   described in this document are largely the result of the interaction
   of operational practices, existing routing technology, number
   resource assignments that have occurred over time, and network
   architectural history.  Further discussion and analysis of these
   interactions are outside the scope of this document.

   This document does not propose any changes to the Internet Numbers
   Registry System, but it does provide information about the current
   Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally
   unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system
   (AS) numbers, while also providing for further evolution of the
   Internet Numbers Registry System.

   This document replaces RFC 2050.  Since the publication of RFC 2050,
   the Internet Numbers Registry System has changed significantly.  This
   document describes the present Internet Numbers Registry System.

2.  Goals

   Internet number resources are currently distributed according to the
   following (non-exclusive) goals:








Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


      1)  Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP
          addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources
          are allocated are finite.  As such, allocations must be made
          in accordance with the operational needs of those running the
          networks that make use of these number resources and by taking
          into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation.

      2)  Hierarchical Allocation: Given current routing technology, the
          distribution of IP addresses in a hierarchical manner
          increases the likelihood of continued scaling of the
          Internet's routing system.  As such, it is a goal to allocate
          IP addresses in such a way that permits these addresses
          aggregated into a minimum number of routing announcements.
          However, whether IP addresses are actually announced to the
          Internet, and the manner of their advertisement into the
          Internet's routing system is an operational consideration
          outside of the scope of the Internet Numbers Registry System.

      3)  Registration Accuracy: A core requirement of the Internet
          Numbers Registry System is to maintain a registry of
          allocations to ensure uniqueness and to provide accurate
          registration information of those allocations in order to meet
          a variety of operational requirements.

   These goals may sometimes conflict with each other or be in conflict
   with the interests of individual end-users, Internet service
   providers, or other number resource consumers.  Careful analysis,
   judgment, and cooperation among registry system providers and
   consumers at all levels via community-developed policies is necessary
   to find appropriate compromises to facilitate Internet operations.

3.  Internet Numbers Registry System Structure

   The Internet Registry (IR) hierarchy was established to provide for
   the allocation of IP addresses and AS numbers with consideration to
   the above goals.  This hierarchy is rooted in the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) address allocation function, which serves a
   set of "Regional Internet Registries" (RIRs); the RIRs then serve a
   set of "Local Internet Registries" (LIRs) and other customers.  LIRs
   in turn serve their respective number resource consumers (which may
   be themselves, their customers, "sub-LIRs", etc.)

   IANA











Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013

      The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a role, not an
      organization.  The IANA role manages the top of the IP address and
      AS number allocation hierarchies.  The Internet Corporation for
      Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently fulfills the IANA
      role in accordance with the IETF-ICANN "Memorandum of
      Understanding Concerning Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
      Numbers Authority", which was signed and ratified in March 2000
      [RFC2860].  In addition, ICANN performs the IANA services related
      to the IP address space and AS numbers according to global number
      resource policies that have been developed by the community and
      formalized under a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
      the Regional Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and documented in
      [ICANNv4], [ICANNv6], and [ICANNASN].

   Regional IRs

      In order to promote distribution of the Internet number resource
      registration function, RFC 1366 proposed delegating responsibility
      to regional bodies.  These bodies became known as the Regional
      Internet Registries (RIRs). The RIRs operate in continent-sized
      geopolitical regions.  Currently there are five RIRs: AfriNIC
      serving Africa, APNIC serving parts of Asia and the Pacific
      region, ARIN serving North America and parts of the Caribbean,
      LACNIC serving Latin America and parts of the Caribbean, and RIPE
      NCC serving Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East.  The RIRs
      were established in a bottom-up fashion via a global policy
      process that has been documented as the ICANN "Internet Consensus
      Policy 2" [ICP-2], which details the principles and criteria for
      establishment of Regional Internet Registries.  The RIRs also
      conduct regional number policy development used in the
      administration of their number resources for which they are
      responsible.

   Local IRs

      Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are established through a
      relationship with the body from which they received their
      addresses, typically the RIR that serves the region in which they
      operate, a parent LIR, or other numbers allocating entity.  In
      cases where LIRs span multiple regions those LIRs have established
      relationships with multiple RIRs.  LIRs perform IP address
      allocation services for their Customers, typically ISPs, end
      users, or "child" or "sub-" LIRs.

4.  Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations

   As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines
   established by the IETF as well as historical and operational
   constraints, there have been technical considerations regarding the
   services provided by the Internet Numbers Registry System as it
   evolved.  These technical considerations have included:




Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


      1)  Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
          policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
          have included consideration of the technical and operational
          requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC5855].

      2)  Public WHOIS: The policies and practices of the Internet
          Numbers Registry System have included consideration of the
          technical and operational requirements for supporting WHOIS
          services [RFC3013][RFC3912].

   As the Internet and the Internet Numbers Registry System continue to
   evolve, it may be necessary for the Internet community to examine
   these and related technical and operational considerations and how
   best to meet them.  This evolution is discussed in the next section.

5.  Internet Numbers Registry Evolution

   Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
   mechanisms by which the structures, policies, and processes of the
   Internet Numbers Registry System itself can evolve to meet the
   changing demands of the global Internet community.  Further evolution
   of the Internet Numbers Registry System is expected to occur in an
   open, transparent, and broad multi-stakeholder manner.

   Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
   issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
   regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
   structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
   framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL].  These core
   values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the
   functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
   levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
   delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
   roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
   affected parties.  The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
   Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
   Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
   document.

   The foregoing does not alter the IETF's continued responsibility for
   the non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the
   architectural definition of IP address and AS number spaces and
   specification of associated technical goals and constraints in their
   application, assignment of specialized address blocks, and
   experimental technical assignments as documented in RFC 2860. In
   addition, in the cases where the IETF sets technical recommendations
   for protocols, practices, or services which are directly related to
   IP address space or AS numbers, such recommendations must be taken
   into consideration in Internet Numbers Registry System policy
   discussions regardless of venue.

6.  Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050


Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


   Since RFC 2050 was published, the Internet and the Internet Numbers
   Registry System have undergone significant change.  This document
   describes the Internet Numbers Registry System as it presently exists
   and omits policy and operational procedures that have been superseded
   by ICANN and RIR policy since RFC 2050 publication.

7.  Security Considerations

   It is generally recognized that accuracy and public availability of
   Internet registry data is often an essential component in researching
   and resolving security and operational issues on the Internet.

8.  IANA Considerations

   No updates to the registries are suggested by this document.

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]

9.  Acknowledgements

   Several people have made comments on draft versions of this document.
   The authors would like to thank Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Daniel
   Karrenberg, Olaf Kolkman, Scott Bradner, Leslie Daigle, Adiel
   Akplogan, Mark Kosters, Elise Gerich, and SM for their constructive
   feedback and comments.  Additionally, we are indebted to the authors
   of RFC 1466 and RFC 2050 for their earlier contributions in this
   area.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [ASOMOU]   Published by ICANN, "ICANN Address Supporting Organization
              (ASO) MoU", October 2004.

              http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm

   [ICANNASN]
              Ratified by ICANN, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
              (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional
              Internet Registries", September 2010.

              http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing
              /global-policy-asn-blocks-21sep10-en.htm

   [ICANNBL]  ICANN, "Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
              and Numbers", December 2012.

              http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws

   [ICANNv4]  Ratified by ICANN, "Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4
              Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA", May 2012.


Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


              http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing
              /allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion

   [ICANNv6]  Ratified by ICANN, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
              (IANA) Policy For Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional
              Internet Registries", September 2006.

              http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing
              /allocation-ipv6-rirs

   [ICP-2]    Published by ICANN, "ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of
              New Regional Internet Registries", July 2001.

              http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.

   [RFC3013]  Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider
              Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013,
              November 2000.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3912]  Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
              September 2004.

   [RFC5855]  Abley, J. and T. Manderson, "Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6
              Reverse Zones", BCP 155, RFC 5855, May 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Russ Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA

   Phone: +1 703 435 1775
   Email: housley@vigilsec.com


   John Curran
   American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
   3635 Concorde Parkway
   Chantilly, VA 20151-1125
   USA

   Phone: +1 703 227 9845
   Email: jcurran@arin.net



Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Internet Registry System              April 2013


   Geoff Huston
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD 4101
   Australia

   Phone: +61 7 3858 3100
   Email: gih@apnic.net


   David Conrad
   Virtualized, LLC
   2310 Homestead Road, C1#204
   Los Altos, CA 94024
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 397 6102
   Email: drc@virtualized.org



































Housley, Curran, Huston Expires October 08, 2013                [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/