[ppml] Afrinic and so-called sub-regional policies

[Trevor Paquette]

Thank you Leo for clearing up RIR vs NIR vs LIR...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Leo
> Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:41 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Afrinic and so-called sub-regional policies
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be some disagreement in the documentation.
> 
> At http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm, we find that:
> 
>    ] Both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are assigned in a delegated 
> manner. Users
>    ] are assigned IP addresses by Internet service providers 
> (ISPs). ISPs
>    ] obtain allocations of IP addresses from a local Internet 
> registry (LIR)
>    ] or national Internet registry (NIR), or from their 
> appropriate Regional
>    ] Internet Registry (RIR):
> 
>    From this it's already a bit unclear if the picture is:
> 
>            RIR                 RIR
>           /   \        or     /   \
>         NIR   LIR           NIR   NIR
>                            /   \  
>                          LIR   LIR
> 
> However, if we dig deeper, at http://www.iana.org/icp/icp-2.htm,
> we find that NIR is never mentioned in this document.  Humm, they
> seem to have disappeared.  But, we do have a geographic requirement
> for RIR's:
> 
>    ] 1) The region of coverage should meet the scale to be 
> defined by ICANN,
>    ] given the need to avoid global address fragmentation
>    ] 
>    ] The proposed RIR must operate internationally in a large 
> geographical
>    ] region of approximately continental size.
>    ] 
>    ] Each region should be served by a single RIR, 
> established under one
>    ] management and in one location. The establishment of 
> multiple RIRs in
>    ] one region is likely to lead to:
>    ] 
>    ] fragmentation of address space allocated to the region; 
>    ] difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs; 
>    ] confusion for the community within the region. 
>    ] 
>    ] The internal administrative or membership structure of 
> an RIR must also
>    ] not be such as to cause any of these effects.
> 
> So, the standard here is "large geographical region" of "approximately
> continental size".  Not a must be a continent, just a large size.
> 
> However, this document also mentions ICANN.  However when you go
> to ICANN, all I can find is http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm,
> which seems to be a copy of the document on the IANA site.
> 
> These two documents also have this interesting wording:
> 
>    ] IP address space is currently distributed by the three 
> existing RIRs
>    ] that receive address space from IANA and allocate it 
> further to Local
>    ] Internet Registries (LIRs) or Internet Service Providers 
> (ISPs). These
>    ] LIRs*, in turn, assign addresses to end-users for use in 
> operational
>    ] networks.
> 
>    ] (*) For the purposes of this document, any reference to 
> LIRs can be
>    ] taken to mean LIRs and ISPs.
> 
> I'm going to assume from the footnote that LIR != ISP (eg, they are
> not synonyms, merely treated equally).
> 
> If we go back further in history, there is also
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2050.html.  I'll not quote as I believe
> it's been largely superseded by the other documents mentioned,
> however of interest is Section 1, which has RIR's and LIR's (no
> NIR's).  This reading also has some other very interesting 
> (historical)
> requirements in it.
> 
> Also of interest, particularly when looking at AfriNIC, is
> http://www.iana.org/reports/lacnic-report-07nov02.htm, the report
> on LACNIC's acceptance.  Of note in this document:
> 
>    ] 6) Adherence to global policies regarding address space 
> conservation,
>    ] aggregation and registration.
>    ] 
>    ] The LACNIC application satisfies Principle 6. Throughout 
> the transition,
>    ] LACNIC has operated under the ARIN policies that have 
> historically been
>    ] applicable to allocations and assignments to operators within its
>    ] service region. Those policies are consistent with the 
> global policies
>    ] applicable to IP address allocation and assignment.
> 
> While it's not a requirement that a new RIR have the same policies
> as an existing RIR, it was seen as a positive the LACNIC had the
> same policies as ARIN during the transition.  I would presume it
> would be similarly positive if AfriNIC had the same policies as
> {RIPE,ARIN,APNIC} during their transition.
> 
> This leaves me with a few questions.  I'm interested in 
> answers for all
> RIR's, but of course extra interested in ARIN's bit of the world:
> 
> 1) Are there any NIR's?
> 
> 2) Are there any LIR's? (Not ISP's)
> 
> 3) Has AfriNIC written a document themselves, or had someone
>    independently review what they have done in the context of ICP-2?
>    This would help evaluate how close they are to really being a
>    recognized registry.
> 
> 4) Do people feel that "approximately continental size" would only
>    mean of continent size or greater, or that, particularly for
>    big continents, it could mean more than one "RIR" in  a continent
>    (by design, not by the happy accident that is currently the
>    Africa situation).
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>