Internet Governance and the Move to Ipv6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Internet Governance and the move to IPv6 TU Delft April 2008 Alex Band & Arno Meulenkamp Internet Governance Community Policies Internet Resource Statistics IPv6 2 Internet Governance ISOC IETF ICANN / IANA RIRs 4 The 5 RIRs 5 What is RIPE NCC? RIPE NCC is –a Network Coordination Center –an independent organisation –a not-for-profit membership association –one of the 5 Regional Internet Registries 6 Registration 7 Goals of the IR System: Registration Why? Ensure uniqueness of IP address space usage Provide contact information for network operators How? RIPE Database Results: IP address space allocated uniquely Contact information available for Internet resources 8 Aggregation 9 Goals of the IR System: Aggregation Why? Routing table grows fast Provide scalable routing solution for the Internet How? Encourage announcement of whole allocations (min /21) Introduction of Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR) Results: Growth of routing table slowed down 10 Conservation 11 Goals of the IR System: Conservation Why? IP address space is limited resource Ensure efficient usage How? Introduction of CIDR Community based policies to ensure fair usage Results: IP address space consumption slowed Address space allocated on ‘need to use’ basis 12 IP address distribution IANA RIR LIR /23 /25 /25 End User Allocation PA Assignment PI Assignment 13 Community Policies Policy Development Cycle Need Evaluation Proposal Execution Discussion Consensus 15 How policy is made ICANN / IANA ASO AfriNIC RIPEReach NCC consensus ARIN across communitiesAPNIC LACNIC AfriNIC RIPE ARIN APNIC LACNIC community community community community community proposal proposalGlobal proposalPolicy Proposal proposal proposal 16 Internet Resource Statistics IPv4 Address Pool - Now Other Central Registry 16% available APNIC RIPE NCC AfriNIC LACNIC source: http://potaroo.net ARIN 18 IPv4 Address Pool - The Future 19 IPv6 IPv6 Basics IPv6 address: 128 bits – 32 bits in IPv4 Every subnet should be a /64 Customer assignments (sites) between: – /64 (1 subnet) – /48 (65536 subnets) Minimum allocation size /32 – 65536 /48’s 21 Huge subnets Makes network planning easier Always enough addresses in a subnet DHCP not necessary for address configuration – but still possible Makes scanning subnets useless (botnets) – too many addresses in a subnet 22 IPv6 and IPv4 compatibility? IPv6 is a different protocol from IPv4 IPv6 hosts cannot talk to IPv4 hosts directly Tools like 6to4 and other tunneling options only let IPv6 hosts talk to eachother 23 IPv6 Transition 24 IPv6 Allocations 25 Getting an IPv6 allocation To qualify, an organisation must: – Be an LIR – Advertise the allocation as a single prefix – Have a plan for making assignments within two years 26 Three Views Who needs IPv6? We have NAT! We’ll move when staying with IPv4 hurts too much We’ll move before IPv4 runs out, smoothly 27 More information: www.ripe.net [email protected] [email protected].

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Initiatives Actors
Governing the internet – actors and initiatives An illustration of the diversity of actors and initiatives influencing the rules, norms, principles and decision-making processes governing the use of the internet globally.* Initiatives Multi-stakeholder Internet and Global Forum EU Internet Global Network UN Open Ended Jurisdiction of Cyber Forum Initiative Working Group5 Policy Network Expertise Alliance for Internet Paris Call2 Affordable EURODIG3 Governance Internet Forum The Geneva WeProtect Christchurch ICANN1 Internet Society Dialogue Global Alliance Call4 Intergovernmental United G7 Digital & Transatlantic International Nations Technology High Level Watch and Group on the Ministerial Group Working Group…6 Warning Network Information UNODC Society Intergovern- Freedom Online mental Expert UNGGE7 Coalition Group on Cybercrime Actors Governments International Organisations (including regional) Technical communities Number World Wide Internet Resource Web Consortium Infrastructure Organization (W3C) Coalition Global Network Internet Operator Group Architecture (NOG) Alliance Board 13 9 12 Regional 11 Industrial 10 Internet ITU8 Internet ARIN Consortium Registries (RIRs) APNIC AFRINIC LACNIC RIPE NCC Multinational companies Online platforms Oversight Facebook Microsoft Apple Tencent Board** Snapchat Instagram Skype iMessage WeChat Telegram Alphabet Baidu Twitter Messenger Bing Facetime QQ SinaCorp Whatsapp LinkedIn YouTube Tieba Qzone ByteDance Mail.ru Verizon Weibo Google Sohu Kuaishou Naver GoDaddy Douyin Yahoo! Reddit Yandex TikTok
[Show full text]
Deploying Ipv6 for an African ISP
Deploying IPv6 for an African ISP By: Mathieu Paonessa How did this all started? • AfriNIC 15 meeEng held in Yaoundé, Cameroon in November 2011 • Presentaons of IPv6 deployments in Egypt, South Africa and Sudan during the African IPv6 iniEaves session. Who is Jaguar Network? • Jaguar Network is a French & Swiss network operator founded in 2001 in Marseille (France). Our main target is providing small & medium business xDSL connecEvity, IP transit, point to point transport, IP/MPLS VPN, colocaon & housing services in more than 30 faciliEes across Europe. • Jaguar Network is building a powerful and resilient opEcal ﬁber network in Europe to provide high speed and redundant access for all the services provided. Developing it's own label known as "THD" (Très Haute Disponibilité), Jaguar Network focus on quality and proximity with its customers in order to bring valued services to our customers. Who is Creolink? • CREOLINK is an enterprise that specialized in the provision of Telecommunicaons services. • It oﬀers and proposes opEmal and innovave communicaons soluEons for all audiences, including access to high-speed Internet, telephony, connecon of mulple remote sites and much more… • Established in January 2001, CREOLINK has revoluEonized the management of daily business work in Cameroon with its perfect knowledge of the implementaon of new technologies of informaon and communicaon. First step: get an IPv6 allocaon • Started the discussion during the IPv6 session of Tuesday November 22nd. • Creolink was already a member of AfriNIC. • Went
[Show full text]
The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?
The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN? Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy September 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44022 The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN Summary Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. Currently the IANA functions contract with NTIA expires on September 30, 2016. However, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA stated that it would not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. For two years, Internet stakeholders were engaged in a process to develop a transition proposal that will meet NTIA’s criteria. On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board formally accepted the multistakeholder community’s transition plan and transmitted that plan to NTIA for approval.
[Show full text]
The Regional Internet Registry System Leslie Nobile
“How It Works” The Regional Internet Registry System Leslie Nobile v Overview • The Regional Internet Registry System • Internet Number Resource Primer: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs • Significant happenings at the RIR • IPv4 Depletion and IPv6 Transition • IPv4 transfer market • Increase in fraudulent activity • RIR Tools, technologies, etc. 2 The Regional Internet Registry System 3 Brief History Internet Number Resource Administration • 1980s to 1990s • Administration of names, numbers, and protocols contracted by US DoD to ISI/Jon Postel (eventually called IANA) • Registration/support of this function contracted to SRI International and then to Network Solutions • Regionalization begins - Regional Internet Registry system Jon Postel forms • IP number resource administration split off from domain name administration • US Govt separates administration of commercial Internet (InterNIC) from the military Internet (DDN NIC) 4 What is an RIR? A Regional Internet Registry (RIR) manages the allocation and registration of Internet number resources in a particular region of the world and maintains a unique registry of all IP numbers issued. *Number resources include IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) and autonomous system (AS) numbers 5 Who Are the RIRs? 6 Core Functions of an RIR Manage, distribute -Maintain directory -Support Internet and register Internet services including infrastructure through Number Resources Whois and routing technical coordination (IPv4 & IPv6 registries addresses and Autonomous System -Facilitate community numbers (ASNs) -Provide
[Show full text]
Ipv6 Allocation Policy
Internet Number Resource Status Report As of 31 March 2005 Prepared by Regional Internet Registries AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE NCC Presented by Axel Pawlik Chair, NRO Managing Director, RIPE NCC IPv4 /8 Address Space Status Allocated 94 Available IANA 73 Reserved 16 20 16 1 2 Not Available ARIN Experimental 16 APNIC LACNIC Multicast 16 RIPE NCC 1 (*) AFRINIC Private Use Public Use 1 Central Registry (*) AFRINIC block was allocated on April 11th by IANA March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report IPv4 Allocations from RIRs to LIRs/ISPs Yearly Comparison 3.0 2.5 AFRINIC APNIC 2.0 ARIN LACNIC 1.5 RIPE NCC /8s 1.0 0.5 0.0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report IPv4 Allocations RIRs to LIRs/ISPs Cumulative Total (Jan 1999 – March 2005) AFRINIC RIPE NCC 0.3 10.2 0.1% 31% APNIC 11.1 33% ARIN 10.9 33% LACNIC 0.6 2% March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report ASN Assignments RIRs to LIRs/ISPs Yearly Comparison 3000 2500 AFRINIC APNIC ARIN 2000 LACNIC RIPE NCC 1500 1000 500 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report ASN Assignments RIRs to LIRs/ISPs Cumulative Total (Jan 1999 – March 2005) AFRINIC 114 1% RIPE NCC 8369 34% APNIC ARIN 2789 12331 11% 51% LACNIC 645 3% March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report IANA IPv6 Allocations to RIRs (no of /23s) 70 66 APNIC 60 ARIN 50 LACNIC RIPE NCC 40 28 30 20 10 4 1 0 APNIC ARIN LACNIC RIPE NCC March 2005 Internet Number Resource Report IPv6 Allocations RIRs to LIRs/ISPs Yearly Comparison 160 140 AFRINIC APNIC 120 ARIN 100
[Show full text]
AFRINIC Internet Routing Registry
AFRINIC Internet Routing Registry Alan Barrett CEO AFRINIC AFPIF 2018 | August 2018 Introduction ● AFRINIC IRR ● How AFRINIC IRR functions ● Comparison between AFRINIC and RIPE NCC IRR ● RIPE NCC Announcement ● Analysis of impact on AFRINIC membership ● Communication to Membership ● Proposal for future IRR enhancements AFRINIC IRR Features • Open to AFRINIC Resource members and Legacy Resource Holders in AFRINIC service region. The AFRINIC IRR is a free service • AFRINIC IRR is mirrored by the other IRRs such as APNIC, RIPE NCC, NTTCOM, AMS-IX, Work Online(SA), Moscow IXP and RADB. • Stable and secure source of routing information. No downtimes recorded since the go-live of the AFRINIC IRR • Easy to Use, AFRINIC IRR is a one-stop-shop as it is part of the AFRINIC WHOIS service. • AFRINIC is the single point of contact for both Internet Resource Management and Routing Registry AFRINIC IRR Roadmap June 2013 - June 2018 June 2013: Deployment of AFRINIC IRR 2013 to 2018: Various AFRINIC initiatives to increase IRR adoption and member education on how to to use the AFRINIC IRR (bootcamps, documentation on website, tutorials during outreach, assistance during face to face consultations, migration tool) Enhancements to Business Rules in May 2016, to address some issues experienced by the AFRINIC membership Adoption of the AFRINIC IRR 23% of AFRINIC members (277) adopted the IRR @30 June 2018 We target adoption by at least 50% of AFRINIC members in the next 12 months Majority of AFRINIC members are still using RIPE NCC IRR (free service) Some members use paid IRR services. Adoption of the AFRINIC IRR AFRINIC encourages adoption of the IRR through: 1.
[Show full text]
IANA Report on Recognition of Afrinic As a Regional Internet Registry
IANA Report Subject: Recognition of AfriNIC as a Regional Internet Registry Date: 6 April 2005 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA), as part of the administrative functions associated with management of the Internet Protocol (IP) address space, is responsible for evaluating applications for approval of new Regional Internet Registries. ICANN has received an application for final approval and recognition of the African Internet Numbers Registry (AfriNIC) as the fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Background The role and responsibilities of ICANN/IANA in this area are defined in the Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding <http://www.icann.org/aso/aso- mou-29oct04.htm> (ASO MOU), and ICP-2 <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm> ("Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries"). In September 2004, an application was submitted by the AfriNIC organization for recognition, together with a detailed transition which included draft bylaws, policies, funding model, and staff resumes. On request of the ICANN President, the IANA staff conducted a preliminary evaluation. In September 2004 the President reported to the Board his conclusion that the application and transition plan constituted a reasonable basis for eventual recognition, though he noted that some adjustments would be necessary. Also in September 2004, the existing RIRs, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE NCC, through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), issued a statement expressing their ongoing and continuing support for AfriNIC, and recommending a favorable response to the application by recognizing AfriNIC's accomplishments thus far. Consistent with the IANA©s preliminary evaluation and the recommendations of the existing RIRs, the ICANN Board on 30 September 2004 gave provisional approval <http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-30sep04.htm> to the AfriNIC application, with the expectation that the transition plan would be completed and an amended or revised application for recognition would be submitted.
[Show full text]
About the Internet Governance Forum
About the Internet Governance Forum The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – convened by the United Nations Secretary-General – is the global multistakeholder forum for dialogue on Internet governance issues. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1 The IGF as an outcome of WSIS 2 IGF mandate 2 THE IGF PROCESS 3 IGF annual meetings 3 Intersessional activities 4 National, regional and youth IGF initiatives (NRIs) 5 PARTICIPATION IN IGF ACTIVITIES 6 Online participation 6 COORDINATION OF IGF WORK 7 Multistakeholder Advisory Group 7 IGF Secretariat 7 UN DESA 7 FUNDING 7 IMPACT 8 LOOKING AHEAD: STRENGTHENING THE IGF 8 The IGF in the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation’s report 8 The IGF in the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation 9 9 1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The IGF as an outcome of WSIS Internet governance was one of the most controversial issues during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-I), held in Geneva in December 2003. It was recognised that understanding Internet governance was essential in achieving the development goals of the Geneva Plan of Action, but defining the term and understanding the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved proved to be difficult. The UN Secretary-General set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to explore these issues and prepare a report to feed into the second phase of WSIS (WSIS-II), held in Tunis in November 2005. Many elements contained in the WGIG report – developed through an open process and multistakeholder consultations – were endorsed in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (one of the main outcomes of WSIS-II).
[Show full text]
Empirical Analysis of the Effects and the Mitigation of Ipv4 Address Exhaustion
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN FAKULTÄT FÜR ELEKTROTECHNIK UND INFORMATIK LEHRSTUHL FÜR INTELLIGENTE NETZE UND MANAGEMENT VERTEILTER SYSTEME Empirical Analysis of the Effects and the Mitigation of IPv4 Address Exhaustion vorgelegt von M.Sc. Philipp Richter geboren in Berlin von der Fakultät IV – Elektrotechnik und Informatik der Technischen Universität Berlin zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades DOKTOR DER NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN -DR. RER. NAT.- genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Möller, Technische Universität Berlin Gutachterin: Prof. Anja Feldmann, Ph.D., Technische Universität Berlin Gutachter: Prof. Vern Paxson, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley Gutachter: Prof. Steve Uhlig, Ph.D., Queen Mary University of London Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 2. August 2017 Berlin 2017 Abstract IP addresses are essential resources for communication over the Internet. In IP version 4, an address is represented by 32 bits in the IPv4 header; hence there is a ﬁnite pool of roughly 4B addresses available. The Internet now faces a fundamental resource scarcity problem: The exhaustion of the available IPv4 address space. In 2011, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) depleted its pool of available IPv4 addresses. IPv4 scarcity is now reality. In the subsequent years, IPv4 address scarcity has started to put substantial economic pressure on the networks that form the Internet. The pools of available IPv4 addresses are mostly depleted and today network operators have to ﬁnd new ways to satisfy their ongoing demand for IPv4 addresses. Mitigating IPv4 scarcity is not optional, but mandatory: Networks facing address shortage have to take action in order to be able to accommodate additional subscribers and customers. Thus, if not confronted, IPv4 scarcity has the potential to hinder further growth of the Internet.
[Show full text]
RIPE Database Terms and Conditions
RIPE Database Terms and Conditions The RIPE NCC shall make the RIPE Database publicly accessible under these RIPE Database Terms and Conditions (hereinafter: the ‘Terms and Conditions’). The Terms and Conditions shall apply to anyone who accesses and uses the RIPE Database. Introduction The RIPE NCC is authorised by the RIPE community to act as the registration authority for Internet number resources in its service region and to manage the operation of the RIPE Database. Article 1 – Definitions In the Terms and Conditions, the following terms shall be understood to have the meanings assigned to them below: RIPE NCC – Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre. A membership association under Dutch law operating its registered office in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. RIPE community – RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond. The objective of RIPE is to ensure the administrative and technical coordination necessary to enable the operation of a pan-European IP network. Update – submitting information for entry into or removal from the RIPE Database Query – requesting information from the RIPE Database Access – Update and Query the RIPE Database Internet number resources – globally unique address space (IPv4 and IPv6) and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) issued by any Internet Number Registry. Primary objects – Internet number resources and other data object types that are not directly related to any other primary object type and which are defined by Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) or which have been agreed by the RIPE Community as acceptable primary data. Secondary objects – objects that are defined by RPSL or which have been agreed by the RIPE Community as acceptable secondary data and which are related, either directly or indirectly, to primary objects.
[Show full text]
AFRINIC Update
AFRINIC Update Alan Barrett CEO AFRINIC About AFRINIC • Vision: Be the leading force in growing the internet for Africa's sustainable development. • AFRINIC is the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Africa and the Indian Ocean region. • Based in Mauritius. • Around 1,300 members in 57 economies. • 44 Staff. 2015 - AFRINIC 10 Years • Founded in 2005, celebrated our 10 year anniversary in 2015. • Commemorative book: https://www.afrinic.net/images/ AFRINIC_10_Year_Anniversary_Book_September_2015.pdf • Video www.youtube.com/watch?v=aINM5J2uEzY Members Statistics 2015 148 new members welcomed on board in 2015. 1400 1050 700 1298 1152 1019 Tot al Mem bers 856 725 350 615 415 500 279 342 0 Up to 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Year Internet Number Resources Statistics 2015 • 16.8 million IPv4 addresses allocated (approx. 1.0 /8) - the highest annual allocation by AFRINIC since inception. • 4,416 /32s and 27 /48s of IPv6 address space allocated - the highest annual allocation by AFRINIC since inception. • 159 Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) assigned. Annual IPv4 Allocation (2011 - 2015) 16.88 13.13 9.1 IPv4 Addresses/ in millions Addresses/ IPv4 7.89 6.8 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Annual IPv6 Allocation (2011 - 2015) 400 300 315.35 275.40 200 100 IPv6/48 Allocation/ in millions Allocation/ IPv6/48 10.09 4.39 3.28 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Annual ASN Assignment (2011 - 2015) 180 135 90 170 159 147 132 141 ASN Assignment ASN 45 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year IPv4 Exhaustion AFRINIC is the only one of the five RIRs that can still allocate IPv4 addresses according to traditional policies.
[Show full text]
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a Brief 2019 Description 25-29 What Is the IGF?
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a brief 2019 description 25-29 What is the IGF? The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It addresses current legal, political, social and technical aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we know it can be maintained and improved. The issues up for discussion include technical standards, human rights mat- ters, the impact of digital technologies on everyday life and working life, and opportunities arising for economic and social development. The IGF has an advisory function and provides an opportunity for all participants to influence the discussions in the relevant decision-making bodies at national and international level. What does Internet governance mean? ‘Internet governance’ describes an open and constructive decision-making and dialogue process of all social groups that serves to raise awareness of problems and to find pos- sible solutions. In this context, ‘governance’ thus does not What is the IGF? refer to state regulation. Internet governance is rather based on the ‘multistakeholder’ approach. This means that The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- representatives of governments and international organi- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It sations, civil society, business and the technical commu- addresses current legal, political, social and technical nity share their views on technical standards, social and aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all economic objectives, political procedures and other rules, aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we values and standards related to the Internet on an equal know it can be maintained and improved.
[Show full text]