RFC 2050 Working Group Presentation by Cathy Wittbrodt Packet Design Original presentation by Mark McFadden University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Address Council Operations Santiago, Chile – April 2003.
Advertisements

1 First NIR Meeting Criteria for establishment of new National Internet Registries March 1st, Korea, Seoul.
RFC 2050 Working Group Ray Plzak ARIN On behalf of Mark McFadden.
RFC 2050 Working Group. Background Addressing policy is obviously important Documenting that policy is crucial Todays Addressing policy is complex But.
60 Recommended Draft Policy ARIN Anti-hijack Policy.
IANA Activities Update Jean-Jacques Sahel | RIPE 70 Amsterdam| 15 May 2015.
Consultation session IANA stewardship transition.
Transition of U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Stewardship of the IANA Functions to the Global.
IP Address Management The RIR System & IP policy
1 CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab The Internet. 2 A Definition On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining the term Internet.
2009-3: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries.
Implementation Update Adam Gosling APNIC Policy SIG Meeting Thursday, 18 September 2014.
Transition of U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Stewardship of the IANA Functions to the Global.
1 The Internet Introductory material. An overview lecture that covers Internet related topics, including a definition of the Internet, an overview of its.
1 The Geography and Governance of Internet Addresses Paul Wilson APNIC.
APNIC Policy SIG1 5 th APNIC Address Policy SIG Report March 7, 2002 Takashi Arano Address Policy SIG Chair Asia Global Crossing.
IPv6 Interim Policy Draft RIPE 42 Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 May 2002.
IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey 2009 Based on responses from the APNIC community APNIC29, 4 March 2010 By Miwa Fujii, Senior IPv6 Program Specialist,
1 ARIN: Mission, Role and Services John Curran ARIN President and CEO.
PDO Activities Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC RIPE Oct - 4 Nov 2011, Vienna.
Shepherd’s Presentation Draft Policy Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors 59.
IANA Governance Changes – NANOG 62 Lightning Talk John Curran, ARIN.
ICANN ASO Address Council ICANN Rio do Janeiro, March 2003.
Address Policy SIG, APNIC Policy meeting, February 27th, 2003 (1) IPv6 Policy in action Feedback from other RIR communities David Kessens Chairperson RIPE.
APNIC Depletion of the IPv4 free address pool – IPv6 deployment The day after!! 8 August 2008 Queenstown, New Zealand In conjunction with APAN Cecil Goldstein,
RIR Status Report RIR Status Report IEPG August 2001.
ARIN Registry Update Richard Jimmerson Director of External Relations.
Introducing IANA Managing Number Resources Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager – IANA October 2009.
IAB Report Technical Plenary IETF 81 July 25, 2011.
ARIN Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update.
ARIN Open Microphone NANOG 23 October 23, 2001Oakland, California Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations.
1 The Internet Introductory material. An overview lecture that covers Internet related topics, including a definition of the Internet, an overview of its.
1 IPv4 Depletion and Migration to IPv6 John Curran Chairman American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
6bone address registry proposal Bob Fink ESnet 17 July 2002 Yokohama.
A Review of Policy Development Processes in the Asia Pacific Region Address Policy SIG APNIC 15, Taipei, Taiwan 27 February 2003.
The ASO is a supporting organization of ICANN Number Resource Policy Development Process Alan Barrett ICANN ASO Address Council ICANN 46 Beijing April.
Filiz Yilmaz IGF 2006, Athens RIPE Policy History Focusing on IPv4 Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer
Management of Internet Resources ITU Workshop on Developing a Policy and Regulatory Framework for Developing Economies of the Pacific 1 December 2003 Suva,
Address Supporting Organization Seoul, Korea – August 2003.
30 April 2003 ITU SG2, Geneva, Switzerland Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC Information Document 21-E ITU-T Study Group 2 May 2003 Question:1/2 Source:TSB Title:The.
1 The Internet Introductory material. An overview lecture that covers Internet related topics, including a definition of the Internet, an overview of its.
Internet Protocol Addresses What are they like and how are the managed? Paul Wilson APNIC.
Rob Blokzijl, RIPE 64, April 2012 IPv4 Maintenance Policy.
1 The Internet Introductory material. An overview lecture that covers Internet related topics, including a definition of the Internet, an overview of its.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Emerging Registry Criteria ASO General Assembly Budapest, 19 May 2000.
ICANN ASO Address Council Status Report APNIC 14, Open Policy Meeting Kitakyushu, Japan September 5 th, 2002.
The Internet will switch versions of IP. Projection based on 3 years.
IETF IPv6 Activities Update Thomas Narten ARIN XVI October 26, 2005.
1 IANA global IPv6 allocation policy [prop-005-v002] Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji.
Recommended Draft Policy RIR Principles 59.
Advisory Council Shepherds: David Farmer & Chris Grundemann Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA.
IANA Numbering Services SLA John Curran ARIN CEO.
IP Address Management The RIR System Nurani Nimpuno APNIC.
60 Draft Policy ARIN NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup.
Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal for IPv6 Policy for Essential Infrastructure in the AP region Izumi Okutani IP Address Section.
IPv6 Adoption Status and Scheduling for Sustainable Development 24 July 2012 Nate Davis Chief Operating Officer, ARIN.
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN
René Wilhelm & Henk Uijterwaal RIPE NCC APNIC21, 18 September 2018
IPv4 Addresses.
2002/9/3 Ruri Hiromi (JPNIC IP Committee/Intec NetCore, Inc.)
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN : Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy Staff Introduction.
IPv6 Address Allocation APNIC
IP Statistics Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total /24 Equivalents Issued*
The Internet Introductory material.
IPv6 distribution and policy update
ADDRESS SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
Policy SIG Thursday 28 August Christchurch, New Zealand
IPv6 Policy Update ~ APNIC community ~
ICANN ASO Address Council
IETF-104 (Prague) DHC WG Next steps
Presentation transcript:

RFC 2050 Working Group Presentation by Cathy Wittbrodt Packet Design Original presentation by Mark McFadden University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

Background Addressing policy is obviously important Documenting that policy is crucial Today’s Addressing policy is complex But not so complex that it can’t be described Many more people are interested than in the mid-1990’s Situation isn’t nearly the same CIDR, IPv6, mobile

What Was RFC 2050? “Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines” Edited by Kim Hubbard, Mark Kosters, David Conrad, Daniel Karrenberg and Jon Postel An IETF BCP describing the distribution of “globally unique IP addresses and registry operations”

What’s In RFC 2050? A few major sections An allocation framework Describing CIDR and hierarchical allocation An assignment framework Describing assignment of blocks of addresses to non-registries – “end enterprises”

More of RFC 2050 Describes needed utilization rates 25% initial and 50% utilization in first year Also described the documentation required Short section on “operational Guidelines for Registries” Also includes IN-ADDR.ARPA and a Right to Appeal

Is RFC 2050 Up To Date? Nobody seems to think so Disagreement about how out of date it really is Clearly not current in key areas IPv6 How further policy is developed Registry operations and organization Assignment windows Special cases

Is There a Problem? Maybe not! Just ignore RFC 2050 and move on! Does anyone really care? Seems like the answer is yes Disagreement about what to do to replace RFC 2050

Should RFC 2050 be Updated? Landscape has been changed dramatically Not just IETF and IANA anymore Never really was this way Updating is would be difficult Many more constituents Other registries, ASO AC etc

Has Anything Happened? Active discussions in Taipei in August 2000 Proposal made at ICANN ASO meeting in Stockholm June 2001 Discussion surrounds What would be a replacement How they would be edited And by whom! How they would be published

What Should be Done? ARIN sponsors a working group To discuss inside the ARIN region What should be done about RFC 2050 Propose alternatives And come to consensus within the region

Pertinent Quote “Did you hate your life?” David Conrad RFC 2050 contributor

RFC 2050 Working Group The objective of the RFC 2050 Working Group is to address the issues relating to relevance of RFC 2050 to the needs of today's Internet registry system The group will evaluate RFC 2050 and propose a method of replacing it with a new document or documents Once consensus has emerged on the process that will be used to replace RFC 2050, the working group will cooperatively develop its replacement The working group will work in coordination with the other Regional Internet Registries who will conduct a similar review process in their respective regions

Mailing List As usual Working Group activity is coordinated through a mailing list Available in the usual way Or Send SUBSCRIBE 2050-WG To

Working Group Milestones I Working group formed (10 Sep 2001) Provide inventory of issues and policies that RFC 2050 addresses (5 October 2001) RFC 2050 Working Group Open Meeting in Miami (29-30 October 2001) NOTE: These have been completed.

Working Group Milestones II Draft requirements document for rewrite (25 January 2002) A set of principles are complete A draft of proposed replacement documents is about to be circulated Draft process for meeting document requirements (25 January 2002) Proposing a group of small editorial teams to edit proposed documents Looking for input on this model on the mailing list

Working Group Milestones III Begin to draft the components of the replacement (March 2002) Work in coordination with the other Regional Internet Registries This is already taking place Public progress report at ASO general assembly meeting (2Q 2002)

Next Step Answer the musical question “Any document or documents that purports to replace RFC 2050 must have...” A requirements document To be completed prior to RIPE meeting in Amsterdam January 2002

Since We Started RFC 2050 inventory has been published on the list RIPE met in Prague Significant development Rather than have 3 or 4 registries discussing RFC 2050 separately Use a single list Cooperation and coordination between regions

Other Progress RFC 2050 Discussions have also taken place in: Amsterdam RIPE Meeting in January 2002 NANOG, IETF, etc. Concrete proposal for moving forward with the process (principles, document requirements and editorial team strategy) is now in discussion

What Next Anyone who is interested in addressing should be involved This means you! Join the mailing list Participate in the discussions in other settings Get as many other people involved as possible Goal: building a useful consensus

Finally Food for thought Have you ever looked at RFC 2050? What should be in a document that describes how addressing works in the internet? Are some of the premises of RFC 2050 out of date? How should the documents look? Who should write them? What should be in them? And, what shouldn’t be?