[ga] "Louis Touton for the IANA"
From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:12 AM
Subject: RE: [AC-COORD] 24/8 Draft
I had not yet seen comments from anyone regarding this document,
so I thought I'd make a few... I think Louis does a great job
of describing the background of the Cable IP address space. I
also agree with the recommendations listed at the end, of course.
Does everyone consider this to be an administrative transfer of
authority for 24/8?
Are there any objections to ARIN assuming authority over this
block? ARIN currently manages in-addr.arpa for registrations in
this /8 and would simply work toward allocating the remaining 20%
of the block by satisfying upcoming requests from cable providers.
Your comments are welcomed. :)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:owner-ac-
email@example.com]On Behalf Of Louis Touton
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:32 PM
Subject: [AC-COORD] 24/8 Draft
DRAFT OF 27 October 2000
REVISION OF ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES FOR IP ADDRESS SPACE FOR THE CABLE
In the first part of 1996, early commercial efforts to deploy cable-modem
technology encountered difficulties, primarily at the InterNIC, with the
then-existing IP-address assignment guidelines. One difficulty was that,
to justify the investment needed to deploy Internet distribution on cable
systems (including upgrade of cable systems to Internet distribution), the
early cable ventures required assignments/reservations larger than
generally available under the then-existing InterNIC assignment guidelines.
As a result, a number of denials of requests for assignments to cable
operators were appealed to the IANA under section 6 of RFC 2050.
In response, in March 1996 the IANA designated the 220.127.116.11/8 address space
for use by Internet service providers using cable television technology to
provision Internet service. The IANA's initial plan was to create a
special registry, defined by industry rather than geography. This was
described in a 3 March 1996 message sent by Jon Postel to the RIRs:
Paul Mockapetris and i had a long conversation about the allocation of IP
address space to the cable TV industry in light of the very likely rapid
growth of the provisioning of IP service by that industry through the use
of cable modems and similar devices to allow anything from a "set top box"
through a full function server (such as a web server) to be attached to a
cable system at up to perhaps 10Mbps data rates in each direction.
I was persuaded that it would be reasonable to allocate a block of address
space to be used by the cable TV industry for this purpose.
The idea is that a special resistry would be established for the cable TV
industry and that all service providers using cable TV technology to
provision Internet service would be asked to get their address blocks from
Toward that end the 24/8 block is designated as the address space to be
used for this purpose, and an initial allocation to the "@ Home" company
has been made from this block.
Requests for address space from other service providers that are primarily
provisioned by cable TV technology should be referred to the IANA for
allocation from this address block until the special registry is
This plan to establish a subject-matter IR was never completed. Instead,
arrangements were made for the Regional IRs to receive requests for cable-
television-related uses, to verify the applicants' demonstrations of need,
and to pass on the requests on to the IANA for assignment from 24/8.
Under these arrangements, which are still in use today, the IANA receives
the need-verified requests, locates a suitable block within 24/8 for
assignment, and communicates the assignment details to the submitting RIR
so that they may be forwarded on to the applicant. The IANA's role is
limited to implementing the assignment strategy within 24/8 to meet the RIR
Although 24/8 IP addresses have been available to all three RIRs under
these procedures, in practice the procedure has been used predominantly by
ARIN, with APNIC and RIPE NCC not having used the process for some time.
Of the 3121 /20s that have been assigned in 24/8, only 80 have been
assigned within the RIPE NCC region and 128 in the APNIC region.
The 24/8 block is assigned using a slow-start reservation strategy. When
the IANA makes an assignment, at the RIR's request adjacent blocks will be
reserved for future assignment to the applicant, so that aggregation
opportunities are maximized.
Assignments and reservations are made in block sizes that range from /13 to
/20. The assignments in the 24/8 now consume over 75% of the total
available space, as shown below:
As the block has filled up, assignments have become increasingly difficult.
Approximately two months ago, the IANA for the first time was unable to
fill a request out of the block when ARIN requested a /12 that could not be
provided from unfragmented space.
The 1996 initiative to allocate IP addresses through channels other than
the RIRs was originally intended to solve a bootstrap problem potentially
preventing cable modem rollout. At the time, the InterNIC did not have
policies that were well suited to the business needs for large blocks of
available IP addresses by potential entrants into the business of cable
distribution of Internet services, in view of those entrant's lack of
established history of usage. These policies resulted in RFC 2050 appeals
to the IANA, which were addressed by setting aside 24/8 for assignment to
this infant industry under assignment rules that were more suited to it.
Whatever the merits of the 1996 initiative (which was controversial at the
time), the conditions that led to it have long since ceased to exist. ARIN
has adopted specific policies for cable address assignments
<http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html> and, since the IANA now
simply relies on ARIN's recommendations on requests forwarded to the IANA,
the IANA's administration of the 24/8 assignments no longer results in a
more liberal assignment policy being applied to cable applications. The
lack of requests to the IANA from the APNIC and RIPE NCC regions indicate
that there is no current problem with the policies of those RIRs as applied
to requests for IP addresses for cable system uses.
1. The IANA staff recommends that address policy be changed to shift the
handling of requests for IP-address assignments for cable-system uses
entirely to the RIR staffs. RIRs should make these assignments out of the
IP address blocks they have been allocated by the IANA. The allocation of
assignment responsibilities between RIRs and NIRs/LIRs should be decided by
each RIR within its existing policy process.
2. Administrative responsibility for 24/8 should be shifted from the IANA
to ARIN. An approach to deal with the relatively small (7%) amount of
space allocated to users outside ARIN's region should be developed in
connection with the overall rationalization of responsibilities currently
going on among the RIRs. Until rationalization, however, all of 24/8
should be administered by ARIN.
3. The question of whether cable-industry needs should be met by the RIRs
through assignments from blocks segregated from those used to meet other
needs should be addressed, at least in the first instance, within the
regional policy-development processes. It is possible that cable operators
will desire a more uniform policy globally. There are also some arguments
that future reclamation/consolidation efforts might be simplified by making
all cable assignments from segregated blocks. The issue, however, does not
seem as pressing as others that merit the more immediate attention of the
global-address-policy development process.
for the IANA
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html