Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Housley
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7020                                Vigil Security
Obsoletes: 2050 (if approved)                                                J. Curran
Intended status:
Category: Informational                                             ARIN
Expires: January 01, 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                G. Huston
                                                                   APNIC
                                                               D. Conrad
                                                        Virtualized, LLC
                                                           June 30,
                                                             August 2013

                  The Internet Numbers Registry System
                    draft-housley-rfc2050bis-02.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 current Internet
   Numbers Registry System.  Rather  Rather, it documents the Internet Numbers
   Registry System as it works today.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a maximum candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of six months RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 January 01, 2014.
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020.

Copyright Notice

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

   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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

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

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 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.  It
   also describes the processes used for further evolution of the
   Internet Numbers Registry System.  This document does not propose any
   changes to the current operation of this 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 currently a goal to allocate IP addresses
       in such a way that permits aggregation of these addresses into a
       minimum number of routing announcements.  However, whether IP
       addresses are actually announced to the Internet, Internet and the manner
       of their advertisement into the Internet's routing system is an are
       operational consideration considerations 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.  Uniqueness ensures that IP addresses
       and AS numbers are not allocated to more than one party at the
       same time.

   These goals may sometimes conflict with each other or be in conflict with the
   interests of individual end-users, 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 are 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.)
   IETF

      The IETF specifies the underlying technical facilities and
      constraints of Internet numbers administered by the Internet
      Numbers Registry System.  These specifications are aimed at
      enabling and protecting the long-term viability of the Internet Internet,
      and adjustments to those specifications are made over time as
      circumstances warrant.  The IETF has also reserved portions of the
      Internet number spaces and identifiers for future needs.

   IANA

      The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a role, not an
      organization.  For the Internet Numbers Registry System, 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.  (Note: RFC 1366 was replaced by RFC 1466,
      which was replaced by RFC 2050.)  These bodies became known as the
      Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).  The RIRs operate in
      continent-sized geopolitical regions.  Currently  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 the 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 number-allocating entity.  In
      cases where LIRs span multiple regions regions, those LIRs have
      established relationships with multiple RIRs.  LIRs perform IP
      address allocation services for their Customers, customers, typically ISPs,
      end users, or "child" or "sub-" LIRs. child LIRs (also known as "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 [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]. [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, 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 that 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 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 the publication of RFC 2050 publication. 2050.

   One particular change of note, note is that RFC 2050 defined an appeal
   process and included:

      If necessary, after exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may
      be forwarded to IANA for a final decision.  Each registry must, as
      part of their policy, document and specify how to appeal a
      registry assignment decision.

   The RIRs have developed consensus-based policies for appeals, and
   over time, they have become accepted by the respective RIR
   communities.  As a result, the ability to further appeal to IANA is
   no longer appropriate.

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.

9.  References

10.1.

9.1.  Normative References

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

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

9.2.  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:
   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:
   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:
   EMail: gih@apnic.net

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

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