More draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt

------- Forwarded Message

Date:     Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:50:42 +0900
From:     David Conrad <davidc at keio.jp.apnic.net>
To:       iab at isi.edu
cc:       apnic-staff at apnic.net, apnic-wg at nic.ad.jp, iepg at iepg.org
Subject:  draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt

Hi,

I have a few questions regarding the recently submitted draft
'draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt'.  I have included relevant text
above the specific questions, so the context can be understood.  I
apologize in advance for the length of this message as I know you all
are very busy people, but this document may have *very* significant
impact on the operation of APNIC and I feel it is important to fully
understand the intent.

>From draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt:

   ...
   With the advent of RFC 1466 and RFC 1597 the criteria for the
   allocation of unique IP numbers and the reservation of unique IP
   numbers have been defined.
   ...

Q1) Does the IAB feel RFC 1466 completely defines the criteria under
which the registries may allocate space?

Q2) Does the IAB feel the criteria in RFC 1466 addresses the issues of
accurate host and subnet estimates for service providers?

   ...
                                          if an organization meets the
   size requirement for the requested address(es) and submits an
   engineering plan, the organization has fulfilled the necessary
   requirments. The Regional Registry will make the allocation based on
   the established criteria.

   The preconditions defined in RFC 1466 are limited to number of hosts
   and subnets as well as an engineering plan if the request deviates
   from the standard criteria.
   ...

Q3) Would it be possible for the IAB to explicitly define their view
of "engineering plan" within the context of this document?

Q4) I would note that there appears to be a contradiction here with
respect to the need for engineering plans, the first paragraph implies
the requirement regardless of conformance to the 1466 criteria, the
second paragraph implies the requirement only if the criteria are
violated.  In the view of the IAB, which of these two alternatives is
the correct one?

   ...
                                           The Internet registries must
   honor an enterprise's request for a globally unique IP address
   provided that the request meets the other conditions used to
   deterimine the appropriate size of address block to allocate.
   ...


Q5) Is it the intent of the IAB to disallow registries from obtaining
additional information which attempt to verify the validity of the 24
month host and subnet estimates, even if the request falls within the
RFC 1466 criteria?

Q6) Is it the intent of the IAB to disallow registries from recovering
reasonable costs for the allocation of address space and the operation
of the registry as a pre-requisite for obtaining the address space?

   ...
   Any organization which anticipates having external connectivity is
   encouraged to apply for a globally unique IP address.
   ...


Q7) Can the IAB express their views on the impact of the policies
defined in the draft statement on the conservation of address space,
or does the IAB feel conservation of address space is not a
significant concern due to the impending implementation of IPv6?

Q8) Can the IAB express their views on the impact of the policies
defined in the draft statement on the aggregation of address space
into provider-based address blocks or does the IAB feel such
aggregation is not a significant concern due to the impending
implementation of IPv6?

Thank you for your time and best wishes for the New Year.

Regards,
- -drc

------- End of Forwarded Message

-------
Date:        Tue, 03 Jan 1995 13:21:44 +0100
From:        Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
Sender:      dfk at ripe.net

To:          David Conrad <davidc at keio.jp.apnic.net>
Cc:          iab at isi.edu, apnic-staff at apnic.net, apnic-wg at nic.ad.jp,
	     iepg at iepg.org

Subject:     Re: draft-iab-assignment-guidance-00.txt 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:50:42 +0900.
	     <199501031050.TAA02928 at keio.jp.apnic.net> 
-------


The questions David raises are quite to the point and highlight the fact
that patching things by way of an additional RFC here and there will not
work and rather make things worse because there inevitably will be 
contradictions and possible misinterpretations.

On the other hand totally "hard-coded" assignemnt criteria are not useful
either. There must be some room for judgement on the part of the
registries.

The conclusion has to be that if the IAB wants to direct address space
assignment they have to come up with a revised RFC1466 with input from
IANA, the registries (and that includes registries operated by ISPs) 
as well as the community at large. 

As I have indicated in the past, the RIPE NCC is quite willing to
contribute to that effort.  on behalf of the RIPE community, I would be
very disappointed if the IAB decides to go ahead with publishing the
draft as is.  I will forward detailed comments I have made to the IAB 
to the IEPG separately. 

Regards

Daniel Karrenberg
Manager RIPE NCC