WHOIS Mi LACNIC
Su dirección IP es / Your IP address is: 

12. Appendixes

Policy Manual (v2.7 01/12/2016)

Policy manual (PDF version)

12. Appendixes

12.1. Appendix 1. List of countries and territories covered by LACNIC

List of countries and territories within LACNIC's area of coverage

12.2. Appendix 2: HD-Ratio

The HD-Ratio is not intended to replace the traditional utilization measurement that ISPs perform with IPv4 today. Indeed, the HD-Ratio still requires counting the number of assigned objects. The primary value of the HD-Ratio is its usefulness in determining reasonable target utilization threshold values for an address space of a given size. This document uses the HD-Ratio to determine the thresholds at which a given allocation has achieved an acceptable level of utilization and the assignment of additional address space becomes justified.

The utilization threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /48 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as:

T = 2((48-P)*HD)

Thus, the utilization threshold for an organization requesting subsequent allocation of IPv6 address blocks is specified as a function of the prefix size and target HD-ratio. This utilization refers to the allocation of /48s to end sites, and not the utilization of those /48s within those end sites. It is an address allocation utilization ratio and not an address assignment utilization ratio.

In accordance with the recommendations of [RFC 3194], this document adopts an HD-Ratio of 0.94 as the utilization threshold for IPv6 address space allocations.

The following table provides equivalent absolute and percentage address utilization figures for IPv6 prefixes, corresponding to an HD-Ratio of 0.94:

P

48 – P

total /48s

Threshold

Ultil %

48

0

1

1

100,0%

47

1

2

2

95,9%

46

2

4

4

92,0%

45

3

8

7

88,3%

44

4

16

14

84,7%

43

5

32

26

81,2%

42

6

64

50

77,9%

41

7

128

96

74,7%

40

8

256

184

71,7%

39

9

512

352

68,8%

38

10

1024

676

66,0%

37

11

2048

1296

63,3%

36

12

4096

2487

60,7%

35

13

8192

4771

58,2%

34

14

16384

9153

55,9%

33

15

32768

17560

53,6%

32

16

65536

33689

51,4%

31

17

131072

64634

49,3%

30

18

262144

124002

47,3%

29

19

524288

237901

45,4%

28

20

1048576

456419

43,5%

27

21

2097152

875653

41,8%

26

22

4194304

1679965

40,1%

25

23

8388608

3223061

38,4%

24

24

16777216

6183533

36,9%

23

25

33554432

11863283

35,4%

22

26

67108864

22760044

33,9%

21

27

134217728

43665787

32,5%

20

28

268435456

83774045

31,2%

19

29

536870912

160722871

29,9%

18

30

1073741824

308351367

28,7%

17

31

2147483648

591580804

27,5%

16

32

4294967296

1134964479

26,4%

15

33

8589934592

2177461403

25,3%

14

34

17179869184

4177521189

24,3%

13

35

34359738368

8014692369

23,3%

12

36

68719476736

15376413635

22,4%

11

37

1,37439E+11

29500083768

21,5%

10

38

2,74878E+11

56596743751

20,6%

9

39

5,49756E+11

108582451102

19,8%

8

40

1,09951E+12

208318498661

18,9%

7

41

2,19902E+12

399664922315

18,2%

6

42

4,39805E+12

766768439460

17,4%

5

43

8,79609E+12

1471066903609

16,7%

4

44

1,75922E+13

2822283395519

16,0

 

12.3. Appendix 3: Additional Report for IP Address Space Allocation

CityAllocated IP AddressesNumber of PortsNumber of Dial-Up
City Allocated IP Addresses Number of Internal Hosts Purpose

 

12.4. Appendix 4: IPv4 Resources Distribution Report

The purpose of the following spread sheet is to inform to LACNIC the distribution of the IPv4 blocks allocated to your organization. Please, fill in the columns with the requested information. Note that you should only detail the blocks directly allocated by LACNIC or by a NIR (Mexico or Brazil) and those with sub-assignments of blocks equal or larger than a /30 block.

12.5. Appendix 5: Requirements for ASO AC nominees

Address Council Nominations Process

Any individual from the Lacnic region may be nominated in this process, with the exception of staff members of any Regional Internet Registry, members of Lacnic's Board of Directors, and any individual having the same nationality as one of the ASO/AC members appointed by the Lacnic community and currently in office.

Self-nominations are allowed.

In order to be accepted, candidates must state that they are aware of Lacnic's policy development process, the role of the ASO AC, and the mechanisms through which the community can participate in these processes.

If the deadline for submission of candidates expires and no candidate meeting all the requirements above has been nominated, a new 15-day nominations period will be announced during which the restriction regarding candidates' country of origin shall not apply.

Should a member of the ASO AC be elected to Lacnic's Board of Directors, said member shall resign from the ASO AC before taking office on the Board.

 

13 - REFERENCES

[RFC 1112] "Host extensions for IP multicasting" S.E. Deering 
08/1989
RFC 1112.

[RFC 1466] "Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space " E. Gerich 05/1993 RFC 1466.

[RFC 1518] "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR", Y. Rekhter and T. Li 09/1993 RFC 1518.

[RFC 1519] "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, and K. Varadham, 09/1993 RFC 1519.

[RFC 1715] "The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency", C. Huitema.
November 1994, RFC 1715.

[RFC  1918] "Address Allocation for Private Internets", Y. Rekhter , D. Karrenberg , R. Moskowitz , G. de Groot , and E. Lear 02/1996 RFC 1918.

[RFC 1930] "Guidelines for creation, selection and registration de an Autonomous System (AS)", J. Hawkinson 03/1996 RFC 1930.

[RFC 2050] "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines", K. Hubbard, M. Kosters, D. Conrad, D. Karrenberg, J. Postel 11/1996 RFC 2050.

[RFC 2317] "Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation", H. Eidnes, G. de Groot, P. Vixie
03/1998 RFC 2317.

[RFC 2373] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S. Deering.
July 1998, RFC 2373.

[RFC 4291] IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture.
R. Hinden, S. Deering, February 2006 RFC 4291.

[RFC 2928] "Initial IPv6 Sub TLA ID Assignments", R. Hinden, S. Deering, R. Fink, T. Hain. September 2000, RFC 2928.

[RFC 3177] "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address". IAB, IESG. September 2001, RFC 3177.

[RFC 3194] "The H Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency An Update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C. Huitema. November 2001, RFC 3194.

[RFC 4893] "BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space", Q. Vohra, E. Chen 05/2007 RFC 4893.

[IAB Request] "Email from IAB to IANA", http://www.iab.org/iab/DOCUMENTS/IPv6addressspace.txt.

[RIRv6 Policies]
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#ipv6
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html
http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html.

http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm

Top CHK_LACNIC