wdiff draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07.txt

Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational R. Jorgensen
Expires: February 25, October 8, 2016 Bredbandsfylket Troms
D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
G. Huston
APNIC - Asia Pacific Network
Information Center
August 24, 2015
April 6, 2016

LISP EID Block Management Guidelines
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06.txt
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07.txt

Abstract

This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID
Prefix.
Address Block. The framework described relies on hierarchical
distribution of the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes
prefixes of such space to requesting organizations.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, October 8, 2016.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. EID Prefix Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Policy Validity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Procedures to be followed by RIPE NCC . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
Appendix A. LISP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12

1. Requirements Notation

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Introduction

The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related
mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835],
[RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separates separate the IP addressing space into two
logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing
LOCator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify
communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in
the Internet routing infrastructure topology.

The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address
block reservation exclusively for use as EID prefixes in the LISP
experiment. The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID
address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].

This document proposes a management framework for the registration of
EID prefixes from that block, allowing the requesting organisation organization
exclusive use of those EID prefixes limited to the duration of the
LISP experiment.

3. Definition of Terms

This document does not introduce any new terms related to the set of
LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833],
[RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help [RFC6837]), but assumes that the reading of
this document
reader is familiar with the terminology introduced by LISP is summarized in
Appendix A. terminology.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP
technology, including its terminology. .

4. EID Prefix Registration Policy

The request for registration of EID prefixes MUST be done under the
following policies:

1. EID prefixes are made available in the reserved space on a
temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of an
experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the
intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see
Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not
documented in the original description, the renewal of the
registration may be denied.

2. EID prefix registrations SHOULD MUST be renewed on a regular basis to
ensure their use by active participants in the experiment. The
registration period is proposed to be 12 months. Registration A renewal SHOULD NOT cause a
change in the registered EID prefix. prefix registered in the previous request. The
conditions of registration renewal should no different to are the same as the conditions
of registration. first EID prefix registration request.

3. It is preferable not to reuse EID prefixes whose registration is
expired. When an EID prefix registration is removed from the
registry, then the reuse of the EID prefix in a subsequent
registration on behalf of a different end user should be avoided
where possible. If the considerations of overall usage of the
EID block prefix requires reuse of a previously registered EID
prefix, then a minimum delay of at least one week between removal
and subsequent registration SHOULD be applied by the registry
operator.

4. All registrations of EID prefixes cease at the time of the
expiration of the reserved experimental LISP EID Block. The
further disposition of these prefixes and the associated registry
entries is to be specified in the announcement of the cessation
of this experiment.

5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements

All EID prefix registrations MUST respect the following requirements:

1. All EID prefix registrations MUST use a globally unique EID
prefix.

2. If there is more than one registry operator, all operators MUST
use the same registry management policies and practices.

3. The EID Prefix registration information information, as specified in
Section 6, MUST be collected upon initial registration and
renewal, and made publicly available though through interfaces allowing
both retrieval of specific registration details (search) and
enumeration of the entire registry contents (e.g., [RFC7481],
whois, http,
WHOIS, HTTP, or similar access methods).

3. The registry operator MUST permit the delegation of EID prefixes
in the reverse DNS space to holders of registered EID prefixes.

4. Anyone can obtain an entry in the EID prefix registry, on the
understanding that the prefix so registered is for the exclusive
use in the LISP experimental network, and that their registration
details (as specified in Section 6) are openly published in the
EID prefix registry.

6. EID Prefix Request Template

The following is a basic request template for prefix registration so
to ensure a uniform process. Such a template is inspired by the IANA
Private Enterprise Number online request form
(http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page).

Note that all details in this registration become part of the
registry,
registry and will be published in the LISP EID Prefix Registry.

The EID Prefix Request template MUST at minimum contain:

1. Organization (In the case of individuals requesting an EID prefix
this section can be left empty)

(a) Organization Name

(b) Organization Address

(d) Organization WebSite

2. Contact Person (Mandatory)

(a) Name

(b) Address

(d) Fax (optional)

(e) Email

3. EID Prefix Request (Mandatory)

(a) Prefix Size

+ Expressed as an address prefix length.

(b) Prefix Size Rationale

+ Note Well: All EID Prefix registrations will be valid
until the earlier date of 12 months from the date of
registration or 31 December 2017. MMMM/YYYY3.

+ All registrations may be renewed by the applicant for
further 12 month periods, ending on 31 December 2017. MMMM/YYYY3.

+ According to the 3+3 year experimentation plan, defined
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], all registrations MUST end
by 31 December 2017, MMMM/YYYY3, unless the IETF community decides to grant
a permanent LISP EID address block. In the latter case,
registrations following the present document policy MUST
end by 31 December 2020 MMMM/YYYY6 and a new policy (to be decided - see
Section 7) will apply starting 1 January
2021. afterwards.

4. Experiment Description

(a) Experiment and Deployment Description

(b) Interoperability with existing LISP deployments

5. Reverse DNS Servers (Optional)

(a) Name server name:

(b) Name server address:

(d) Name server address:

(Repeat if necessary)

7. Policy Validity Period

Policy outlined in the present document is tied to the existence of
the experimental LISP EID block requested in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] and valid until 31 December 2017. MMMM/YYYY3.

If the IETF decides to transform the block in a permanent allocation,
the LISP EID block reserved usage period will be extended for three
years (until 31 December 2020) MMMM/YYYY6) so as to give time to the IETF to define,
following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], the final size of the
EID block and create a transition plan, while the policy in the
present document will still apply.

Note that, as stated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], the transition of
the EID block into a permanent allocation, allocation has the potential to pose
policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence
discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community
will be necessary to determine appropriate policy for permanent EID
prefix management, which will be effective starting 1 January 2021. after MMMM/YYYY6.

[RFC Editor: please replace MMMM and all its occurrences in the
document with the month of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]
as RFC.]

[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY0 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as
RFC.]

[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY3 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as
RFC plus 3 years, e.g., if published in 2016 then put 2019.]

[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY6 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as
RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if published in 2016 then put 2022.]

8. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.

For accountability reasons, reasons and in line with the security
considerations in [RFC7020], each registration request MUST contain
accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution,
individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a
referral person (see Section 6).

9. IANA Considerations

This document provides only management guidelines for

IANA allocated the reserved following IPv6 address block for experimental use
as LISP EID prefix requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].

There is an operational requirement [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]:

o Address Block: 2001:5::/32

o Name: EID Space for an LISP

o RFC: [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]

o Further Details at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/
iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml

In order to grant requesting organisations and individuals exclusive
use of EID registration service
that ensures uniqueness prefixes out of EIDs according such reserved block (limited to the requirements
described
duration of the LISP experiment as outlined in Section 5. Furthermore, 7) there is an
operational requirement for an EID registration service service.

Provided that allows a lookup of the
contact information of the entity that registered the EID.

IANA policies and RIPE NCC agreed for the latter to run such service requirements outlined in Section 4,
Section 5, and Section 6 are respected, EID prefix registration is
accorded based on behalf
of a "First Come First Served" basis.

There is no hard limit in the former, for number of registrations an organization
or individual can submit as long as information described in
Section 6 is provided, in particular point 4: "Experiment
Description".

For the duration of defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] RIPE NCC will
manage the experiment and following the
procedures outlined in Section 10. LISP EID prefix as described herein. Therefore, this
document has no IANA actions.

10. Procedures to be followed by RIPE NCC

RIPE NCC will provide the registration service following the EID
Prefix Registration Policy (Section 4) and the EID Prefix
Registration Requirements (Section 5) provided in this document. The
request form provided by RIPE NCC will include at least the
information from the template in Section 6. RIPE NCC will make
publicly available all received requests. While this document does
not suggests any minimum allocation size, RIPE NCC is allowed to
introduce such minimum size for menagement management purposes.

11. Acknowledgments

Thanks to A. Retana, J. Arko, P. Yee, A. de la Haye, A. Cima, A
Pawlik, J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis,
D. Farinacci, M. Binderberger, D. Saucez, E. Lear, for their helpful
comments.

The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT-
Labs SOFNETS Project.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]
Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP
EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13 (work in
progress), May 2015. February 2016.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

12.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.

[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.

[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.

[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.

[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6835, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.

[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.

[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6837, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.

[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7020, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.

[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.

Appendix A. LISP Terms

LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. This section provides high-level definitions Document Change Log

Version 07 Posted April 2016.

o Addressed editorial issues raised in Gen-Art review by Peter Yee.

o Removed "Definition of the LISP
name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be
considered Terms" section as an authoritative source. The reference to the
authoritative document for each term is included suggested by Peter Yee in every term
description.

Legacy Internet: The portion of
the Internet that does not run LISP Gen-Art review.

o Section "IANA Considerations" has been re-written to fix issue
raised by IESG, IANA, and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.

LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside P. Yee.

o Deleted bullet allowing multiple operators in the edge network are the demarcation points requirements
section. Due to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more
details.

Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
the first (most inner) LISP header limited duration of a packet. A packet that is
emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
EID experiment one single
registration operator (RIPE) is obtained via existing mechanisms used sufficient.

o Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to set a host's
"local" IP address. An EID is allocated allow RFC Editor
to a host from an EID-
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [RFC6830] for more details.

EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site easily update dates by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more
details.

EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
for more details.

Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an
egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more
details.

EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC-
set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830]
for more details.

Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address publication as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [RFC6830] for more details.

Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details.

Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.

Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on
behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.

Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.

Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.

The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.

ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [RFC6830] for more details.

Appendix B. Document Change Log RFC.

Version 06 Posted August 2015.

o Fixed Authors addresses and typo in section 10.

Version 05 Posted July 2015.

o Added explicit text about RIPE NCC providing the registration
service during the temporary experiment.

Version 04 Posted December 2014.

o Added two clarification sentences to address the comments of E.
Lear and D. Saucez during WG LC.

Version 03 Posted October 2014.

o Re-worded the document so to avoid confusion on "allocation" and
"assignement". The document now reffers to "registration". As
for comments by G. Huston and M. Binderberger.

Version 02 Posted July 2014.

o Deleted the trailing paragraph of Section 4, as for discussion in
the mailing list.

o Deleted the fees policy as of suggestion of G. Huston and
discussion during 89th IETF.

o Re-phrased the availability of the registration information
requirement avoiding putting specific numbers (previously
requiring 99% up time), as of suggestion of G. Huston and
discussion during 89th IETF.

Version 01 Posted February 2014.

o Dropped the reverse DNS requirement as for discussion during the
88th IETF meeting.

o Dropped the minimum allocation requirement as for discussion
during the 88th IETF meeting.

o Changed Section 7 from "General Consideration" to "Policy Validity
Period", according to J. Curran feedback. The purpose of the
section is just to clearly state the period during which the
policy applies.

Version 00 Posted December 2013.

o Rename of draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt.

Authors' Addresses

Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
France

Email: ggx@gigix.net

Roger Jorgensen
Bredbandsfylket Troms
Norway

Email: rogerj@gmail.com

David Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
USA

Email: drc@virtualized.org

Geoff Huston
APNIC - Asia Pacific Network Information Center
Australia

Email: gih@apnic.net