This is only one possible solution. This document is DRAFT. This document does not attempt to define policy; it is merely intended to provoke some useful discussion.

I'd like to propose something of a variation to Joe's 'One Possible Solution' to the addressing issues. This is based on a little research and a selective interpretation of the following references: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html Ripe-160: Guidelines for Setting up a Local Internet Registry at the RIPE NCC [and if you don't think this is relevant take a peek at http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html ] http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt ' Local IR's are of three types: 'Service Provider', 'Enterprise' and 'National'. An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organisation that supplies Internet connectivity to its customers or users. An ISP can become a local IR by agreeing to certain conditions (see APNIC-011). A 'National' local IR's handle all requests from organisations that have no connection to the Internet at present or planned. In addition, National IRs may also delegate addresses to ISPs within a national context. 'National' IR's are often run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community.....' http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt 'With respect to IP address 'ownership', service providers have the option of treating the sub-delegation of networks to customers as permanent or, if explicitly specified in the service provider's contractual agreement, temporary. It must be stressed that without a contractual agreement stating otherwise, assignment of networks to end users is always considered permanent (e.g., the 'ownership' of the network is transferred to the client).' The essence of the proposed variation is that instead of APNIC, a 'National' IR would be established in NZ (run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community). This 'National' IR to take over management of the NZGATE space for use as PI space for those who need it. This would not preclude any organisation obtaining space elsewhere. Clearly taking over the NZGATE space would require consent and co-operation from APNIC but with a broad based approach from NZ ISP's surely this would be possible? The following suggested changes to Joe's document are not intended to be complete and are also in draft form only. This is to give a general flavour, provide a basis for discussion and goes something like this:

2.3. Administrative control of NZGATE blocks returned to APNIC

All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be returned to APNIC for administration. No further delegations from the NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider.

All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be passed to the 'National' IR for administration. No further delegations from the NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider.

2.4. Forced renumbering

No end-user network using NZGATE subnets should be obliged to renumber as part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]).

No end-user network using PI (NZGATE) subnets should be obliged to renumber as part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]) however an annual charge may be levied by the 'National' IR. [to act as a disincentive to retaining unused addresses and help cover costs].

2.5. Process for extending address space delegations

Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing in order to obtain their larger address range. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the ISP.

Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing (PA) in order to obtain their larger address range. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the ISP. Any provider network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber to an alternative PI range provided by the 'National' IR if a contiguous allocation cannot be provided to obtain their larger address range.

2.6. Process for managing ISP-hopping by end-user networks

Any end-user network that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change ISPs must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the former ISP.

Any end-user network that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change ISPs must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the former ISP.

2.7. Process for managing ISP-hopping by national providers

Any national provider that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change global transit providers must renumber its own infrastructure using provider-based addressing provided by the new global transit provider. Customers of the national provider who use NZGATE numbers will not be required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]).

Any national provider that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change global transit providers will not be required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). I have retained the terms 'end user' 'national provider' and 'global transit providers' assuming I know what they mean but I think some form of definition would be in order. Constructive comments (and other responses) to the list please. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz http://www.clearview.co.nz/ http://www.clearview.co.nz/ Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog