Browse Prior Art Database

Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space (RFC1366)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002190D
Original Publication Date: 1992-Oct-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-11
Document File: 8 page(s) / 11K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

E. Gerich: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1366: DOI

Abstract

This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Task Force (FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co-chairs of the International Engineering Planning Group (IEPG), and the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE). There was general consensus by those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this document for management of the IP address space. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. This RFC suggests an extension to the IP protocol to solve the shortage of IP address problem, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBR) that will run BGP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK] 1363 Partridge Spt 92 A Proposed Flow Specification The flow specification defined in this memo is intended for information and possible experimentation (i.e., experimental use by consenting routers and applications only). This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 19% of the total text.

Network Working Group E. Gerich Request for Comments: 1366 Merit October 1992

Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Task Force (FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co- chairs of the International Engineering Planning Group (IEPG), and the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE). There was general consensus by those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this document for management of the IP address space.

1.0 Introduction

With the growth of the Internet and its increasing globalization, much thought has been given to the evolution of the network number allocation and assignment process. RFC 1174, "Identifier Assignment and Connected Status", dated August 1990 recommends that the Internet Registry (IR) continue as the principal registry for network numbers; however, the IR may allocate blocks of network numbers and the assignment of those numbers to qualified organizations. The IR will serve as the default registry in cases where no delegated registration authority has been identified.

The distribution of the registration function is desirable, and in keeping with that goal, it is necessary to develop a plan which manages the distribution of the network number space. The demand for network numbers has grown significantly within the last two years and as a result the allocation of network numbers must be approached in a more systematic fashion.

This document proposes a plan which will forward the implementation of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of the network number space. There are three major topics to be addressed:

1) Qualifications for Distributed Regional Registries

2) Allocation of the Network Number Space by the Internet Registry

Gerich [Page 1]

RFC 1366 Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space October 1992

3) Assignment of the Network Numbers

2.0 Qualifications for Distributed Regional Registries

The major reason to distribute the registration function is that the Internet serves a more diverse global population than it did at its inception. This means that registries which are located in distinct geographic areas may be better able to serve the local community in terms of language and local customs. While there appears to be wide support for the concept of distribution of the registration function, it is important to define how the candidate delegated registries will be chosen and from which geographic areas.

Based on the growth and the maturity of the Internet in Europe, Central/South America and the Pacific Rim areas, it is desirable to consider delegating the registration function to an organization in each of those geographic areas. Until an organization is identified in those regions, the IR will continue to serve as the default registry. The...

Processing...
Loading...