Subject: RE: (ipv6) semantics - TLA

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:01:33 -0800

Brian,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The point I am trying to make here is that we need a name
>> or acronym for "ISPs that receive their addresses directly
>> from a RIR". I am not saying that "TLA" is the best
>> definition, but it does fit, regardless of allocation
>> policies and aggregation policies.

> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> HOBBIT = High Order Bytes and BITs 
> The prefix allocated directly to an operator by an RIR.

Mmmm. I like it. Do you think we can, by extension, call the
operator a HOBBIT also ? Some of them might not be totally
receptive to the idea.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:03:08 -0800

Thomas,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The point I am trying to make here is that we need a name or acronym
>> for "ISPs that receive their addresses directly from a RIR". I am
>> not saying that "TLA" is the best definition, but it does fit,
>> regardless of allocation policies and aggregation policies.

> Thomas Narten wrote:
> I think the registry terminology would be Local Internet Registry
> (LIR). RIRs allocate address space to LIRs.

I find the LIR definition below somehow inconsistent with RIR and NIR.
If one was to follow the same logic, RIR, NIR and LIR would be similar
(RIR assigns to NIR and LIR, NIR assigns to LIR) except for their scope:

- RIR : ~continent.
- NIR : nation.
- LIR : city / metropolitan area.

Indeed, the logical definition for a LIR should be something like "A
provider-independent organization that assigns PI addresses to end-user
sites". It does not mean that the actual function could not be performed
by an ISP (as mentioned in 6.1.8 of [MHAP]), but the ISP should then be
clearly wearing two different hats. I am not convinced that making an
ISP a registry is a good idea in the sense that most people would want a
registry to be independent from the operators.

Which still leaves us (when RFC2373 is obsolete) with no replacement for
"TLA" and "pTLA". I still don't understand what is wrong with these.

Michel

[MHAP] = http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-01a.txt

> From:
>    IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
>    ftp://ftp.cs.duke.edu/pub/narten/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.txt
> 2.4.  Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
>    Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are established and authorized
by
>    respective regional communities, and recognized by the IANA to
serve
>    and represent large geographical regions.  The primary role of RIRs
>    is to manage and distribute public Internet address space within
>    their respective regions.  Currently, there are three RIRs: APNIC,
>    RIPE NCC, and ARIN.  Preparations are being made to establish
LACNIC
>    and AfriNIC.
> 2.5.  National Internet Registry (NIR)
>    A National Internet Registry (NIR) is an IR that primarily
allocates
>    address space to its members, which are Local Internet Registries
>    (LIRs).  NIR members are generally Internet Service Providers
(ISPs)
>    organized at a national level.  A NIR is constituted from ISPs, but
>    the NIR itself does not function as an ISP.  NIRs are expected to
>    remain neutral to the interests of ISPs of their constituency.
NIRs
>    exist mostly in the Asia Pacific Region.
> 2.6.  Local Internet Registry (LIR)
>    A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns
>    address space to the users of the network services that it
provides.
>    LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users
and
>    possibly other ISPs.