wdiff draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt

Network Working Group R. Housley
Internet-Draft Vigil Security, LLC
Obsoletes: 2050 (if approved) J. Curran
Intended status: Informational ARIN
Expires: August 31, October 08, 2013 G. Huston
APNIC
D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
March
April 8, 2013

The Internet Numbers Registry System
draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt
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 August 31, October 08, 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 and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Internet Numbers Registry System Structure . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.
4. Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations . . . . . . 4
4.
5. Internet Numbers Registry Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. 5
6. Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1.
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2.
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7

1. Introduction and Goals

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:

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
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a role, not an
organization. The IANA role manages the traditional
name for top of the technical team making IP address and publishing the assignments
of Internet protocol technical parameters, including
AS number allocation hierarchies. The Internet
Protocol (IP) address space. As a result of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)[RFC2860] between the IETF, IAB, Corporation for
Assigned Names and ICANN, Numbers (ICANN) currently fulfills the
technical work IANA
role in accordance with the IETF-ICANN "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA)
is now performed by ICANN. Today, Authority", which was signed and ratified in March 2000
[RFC2860]. In addition, ICANN performs the IANA administers services related
to the IP address space and AS numbers according to global number
resource policies
as that have been developed per by the agreement 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. 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 that span multiple regions may establish those LIRs have established
relationships with multiple RIRs. LIRs typically perform IP address
allocation services for their
customers such as Customers, typically ISPs, end
users, or other "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:

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 [RFC3172]. [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]. [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.

4. 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
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
The IANA will continue

No updates to provide the root of the IP address and
autonomous system number hierarchies and will maintain a registry
that provides registration information for any allocations made registries are suggested by
the IANA.

8. 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 and Daigle, Adiel
Akplogan
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

9.1.

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.

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.

[RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational
Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area
Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001.

[RFC6484] Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K. and R. Watro, "Certificate
Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", BCP 173, RFC 6484, February 2012.

9.2.

10.2. Informative References

[RFC1466] Gerich, E., "Guidelines for Management of IP Address
Space", RFC 1466, May 1993.

[RFC1518] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "An Architecture for IP Address
Allocation with CIDR", RFC 1518, September 1993.

[RFC1814] Gerich, E., "Unique Addresses are Good", RFC 1814, June
1995.

[RFC1900] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work",
RFC 1900, February 1996.

[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G. and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

[RFC2050] Hubbard, K., Kosters, M., Conrad, D., Karrenberg, D. and
J. Postel, "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES",
BCP 12, RFC 2050, November 1996.

[RFC2317] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G. and P. Vixie, "Classless IN-
ADDR.ARPA delegation", BCP 20, RFC 2317, March 1998.

[RFC2350] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer
Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, June 1998.

[RFC3221] Huston, G., "Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the
Internet", RFC 3221, December 2001.

[RFC3707] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service

[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol
(CRISP) Requirements", Specification", RFC 3707, February 3912,
September 2004.

[RFC4632] Fuller, V.

[RFC5855] Abley, J. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment Manderson, "Nameservers for IPv4 and Aggregation
Plan", IPv6
Reverse Zones", BCP 122, 155, RFC 4632, August 2006. 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
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#240 C1#204
Los Altos, CA 94024
USA

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