[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 at 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 at uk.uu.net>
> To: <crain at icann.org>; <lir-wg at ripe.net>
> Sent: 06/09/2001 7:40 È.Ù
> Subject: Re: MIR proposal
> 
> 
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John L Crain" <crain at icann.org>
> > To: <lir-wg at 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 at staff.apnic.net                              *
>