Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley
Request for Comments: 7020 Vigil Security
Obsoletes: 2050 J. Curran
Category: Informational ARIN
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Huston
APNIC
D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
August 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley
Request for Comments: 7020 Vigil Security
Obsoletes: 2050 J. Curran
Category: Informational ARIN
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Huston
APNIC
D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
August 2013
The Internet Numbers Registry System
互联网号码登记系统
Abstract
摘要
This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.
本文档提供了有关当前用于分发全球唯一Internet协议（IP）地址空间和自治系统（AS）号码的Internet号码注册系统的信息。
This document also provides information about the processes for further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.
本文件还提供了有关进一步发展互联网号码登记系统的进程的信息。
This document replaces RFC 2050.
本文件取代RFC 2050。
This document does not propose any changes to the current Internet Numbers Registry System. Rather, it documents the Internet Numbers Registry System as it works today.
本文件不建议对当前的互联网号码注册系统进行任何更改。相反，它记录了互联网号码注册系统目前的运作情况。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Internet Numbers Registry System Structure . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations . . . . . . 5
5. Internet Numbers Registry Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Summary of Changes since RFC 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Internet Numbers Registry System Structure . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations . . . . . . 5
5. Internet Numbers Registry Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Summary of Changes since RFC 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The administrative structures of the Internet Numbers Registry System described in this document are largely the result of the interaction of operational practices, existing routing technology, number resource assignments that have occurred over time, and network architectural history. Further discussion and analysis of these interactions are outside the scope of this document.
本文件中描述的互联网号码注册系统的管理结构主要是操作实践、现有路由技术、随时间发生的号码资源分配以及网络体系结构历史相互作用的结果。对这些相互作用的进一步讨论和分析不在本文件的范围之内。
This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers. It also describes the processes used for further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System. This document does not propose any changes to the current operation of this system.
本文档提供了有关当前用于分发全球唯一Internet协议（IP）地址空间和自治系统（AS）号码的Internet号码注册系统的信息。它还描述了用于进一步发展互联网号码登记系统的过程。本文件不建议对本系统的当前操作进行任何更改。
This document replaces RFC 2050. Since the publication of RFC 2050, the Internet Numbers Registry System has changed significantly. This document describes the present Internet Numbers Registry System.
本文件取代RFC 2050。自《RFC 2050》出版以来，互联网号码登记系统发生了重大变化。本文件描述了目前的互联网号码登记系统。
Internet number resources are currently distributed according to the following (non-exclusive) goals:
Internet号码资源当前根据以下（非独占）目标进行分配：
1) Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources are allocated are finite. As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational needs of those running the networks that make use of these number resources and by taking into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation.
1) 分配池管理：由于IP地址和AS编号的长度固定，分配这些资源的池是有限的。因此，必须根据使用这些数字资源的网络运营商的运营需求进行分配，并在分配时考虑池限制。
2) Hierarchical Allocation: Given current routing technology, the distribution of IP addresses in a hierarchical manner increases the likelihood of continued scaling of the Internet's routing system. As such, it is currently a goal to allocate IP addresses in such a way that permits aggregation of these addresses into a minimum number of routing announcements. However, whether IP addresses are actually announced to the Internet and the manner of their advertisement into the Internet's routing system are operational considerations outside the scope of the Internet Numbers Registry System.
2) 分层分配：鉴于当前的路由技术，IP地址的分层分配增加了互联网路由系统继续扩展的可能性。因此，当前的目标是以允许将这些地址聚合为最少数量的路由公告的方式分配IP地址。然而，IP地址是否实际向互联网公布，以及在互联网路由系统中公布IP地址的方式，是互联网号码注册系统范围之外的操作考虑因素。
3) Registration Accuracy: A core requirement of the Internet Numbers Registry System is to maintain a registry of allocations to ensure uniqueness and to provide accurate registration information of those allocations in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. Uniqueness ensures that IP addresses and AS numbers are not allocated to more than one party at the same time.
3) 登记准确性：因特网号码登记系统的一项核心要求是维持分配登记册，以确保唯一性，并提供这些分配的准确登记信息，以满足各种业务要求。唯一性确保IP地址和AS编号不会同时分配给多个参与方。
These goals may sometimes conflict with each other or with the interests of individual end users, Internet service providers, or other number resource consumers. Careful analysis, judgment, and cooperation among registry system providers and consumers at all levels via community-developed policies are necessary to find appropriate compromises to facilitate Internet operations.
这些目标有时可能相互冲突，或与个人最终用户、互联网服务提供商或其他数字资源消费者的利益冲突。必须通过社区制定的政策，在各级注册系统提供商和消费者之间进行仔细的分析、判断和合作，以找到适当的折衷方案，促进互联网运营。
The Internet Registry (IR) hierarchy was established to provide for the allocation of IP addresses and AS numbers with consideration to the above goals. This hierarchy is rooted in the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) address allocation function, which serves a set of "Regional Internet Registries" (RIRs); the RIRs then serve a set of "Local Internet Registries" (LIRs) and other customers. LIRs in turn serve their respective number resource consumers (which may be themselves, their customers, "sub-LIRs", etc.)
建立互联网注册（IR）层次结构是为了提供IP地址和AS编号的分配，并考虑到上述目标。这种层次结构植根于互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）地址分配功能，该功能为一组“区域互联网注册”（RIR）服务；RIR然后服务于一组“本地互联网注册中心”（LIR）和其他客户。LIR反过来服务于各自的数字资源消费者（可能是他们自己、他们的客户、“子LIR”等）
IETF
IETF
The IETF specifies the underlying technical facilities and constraints of Internet numbers administered by the Internet Numbers Registry System. These specifications are aimed at enabling and protecting the long-term viability of the Internet, and adjustments to those specifications are made over time as circumstances warrant. The IETF has also reserved portions of the Internet number spaces and identifiers for future needs.
IETF规定了互联网号码注册系统管理的互联网号码的基础技术设施和限制条件。这些规范旨在实现和保护互联网的长期生存能力，并根据情况对这些规范进行调整。IETF还为未来的需要保留了部分互联网号码空间和标识符。
IANA
伊安娜
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a role, not an organization. For the Internet Numbers Registry System, the IANA role manages the top of the IP address and AS number allocation hierarchies. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently fulfills the IANA role in accordance with the IETF-ICANN "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", which was signed and ratified in March 2000 [RFC2860]. In addition, ICANN performs the IANA services related to the IP address space and AS numbers according to global number resource policies that have been developed by the community and formalized under a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and documented in [ICANNv4], [ICANNv6], and [ICANNASN].
互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）是一个角色，而不是一个组织。对于Internet号码注册系统，IANA角色管理IP地址的顶部和AS号码分配层次结构。根据2000年3月签署和批准的IETF-ICANN“关于互联网分配号码管理局技术工作的谅解备忘录”，互联网名称和号码分配公司（ICANN）目前履行IANA职责[RFC2860]。此外，ICANN根据社区制定的、根据ICANN与区域互联网注册机构之间的谅解备忘录[ASOMOU]正式制定并记录在[ICANNv4]、[ICANNv6]和[ICANNASN]中的全球号码资源政策，执行与IP地址空间和AS号码相关的IANA服务。
Regional IRs
地区国税局
In order to promote distribution of the Internet number resource registration function, RFC 1366 proposed delegating responsibility to regional bodies. (Note: RFC 1366 was replaced by RFC 1466, which was replaced by RFC 2050.) These bodies became known as the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The RIRs operate in continent-sized geopolitical regions. Currently, there are five RIRs: AfriNIC serving Africa, APNIC serving parts of Asia and the Pacific region, ARIN serving North America and parts of the Caribbean, LACNIC serving Latin America and parts of the Caribbean, and RIPE NCC serving Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East. The RIRs were established in a bottom-up fashion via a global policy process that has been documented as the ICANN "Internet Consensus Policy 2" [ICP-2], which details the principles and criteria for establishment of Regional Internet Registries. The RIRs also conduct regional number policy development used in the administration of the number resources for which they are responsible.
为了促进因特网号码资源登记职能的分配，RFC 1366提议将责任下放给区域机构。（注：RFC 1366被RFC 1466取代，RFC 2050取代）。这些机构被称为区域互联网注册中心（RIR）。RIR在大陆大小的地缘政治区域运作。目前，有五个RIR：AfriNIC服务于非洲，APNIC服务于亚洲和太平洋地区的部分地区，ARIN服务于北美和加勒比部分地区，LACNIC服务于拉丁美洲和加勒比部分地区，成熟的NCC服务于欧洲、亚洲部分地区和中东。RIR是通过ICANN“互联网共识政策2”[ICP-2]记录的全球政策流程以自下而上的方式建立的，该流程详细说明了建立区域互联网注册的原则和标准。RIR还负责制定区域数字政策，用于管理其负责的数字资源。
Local IRs
地方国税局
Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are established through a relationship with the body from which they received their addresses, typically the RIR that serves the region in which they operate, a parent LIR, or other number-allocating entity. In cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have established relationships with multiple RIRs. LIRs perform IP address allocation services for their customers, typically ISPs, end users, or child LIRs (also known as "sub-LIRs").
本地互联网注册中心（LIR）是通过与接收其地址的机构的关系建立的，通常是为其运营所在地区服务的RIR、上级LIR或其他号码分配实体。在LIR跨越多个地区的情况下，这些LIR与多个RIR建立了关系。LIR为其客户（通常为ISP、最终用户或子LIR（也称为“子LIR”）执行IP地址分配服务。
As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines established by the IETF as well as historical and operational constraints, there have been technical considerations regarding the services provided by the Internet Numbers Registry System as it evolved. These technical considerations have included:
由于IETF制定的技术标准和指南体系以及历史和操作限制，互联网号码注册系统在发展过程中提供的服务存在技术考虑。这些技术考虑包括：
1) Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System have included consideration of the technical and operational requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC5855].
1) 反向DNS：在使用反向DNS的情况下，互联网号码注册系统的政策和实践包括考虑反向DNS区域授权提出的技术和操作要求[RFC5855]。
2) Public WHOIS: The policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System have included consideration of the technical and operational requirements for supporting WHOIS services [RFC3013] [RFC3912].
2) 公共WHOIS：互联网号码注册系统的政策和实践包括考虑支持WHOIS服务的技术和操作要求[RFC3013][RFC3912]。
As the Internet and the Internet Numbers Registry System continue to evolve, it may be necessary for the Internet community to examine these and related technical and operational considerations and how best to meet them. This evolution is discussed in the next section.
随着互联网和互联网号码登记系统的不断发展，互联网社区可能有必要研究这些以及相关的技术和操作考虑因素，以及如何最好地满足这些考虑因素。下一节将讨论这一演变。
Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed mechanisms by which the structures, policies, and processes of the Internet Numbers Registry System itself can evolve to meet the changing demands of the global Internet community. Further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System is expected to occur in an open, transparent, and broad multi-stakeholder manner.
多年来，互联网号码注册系统已经发展了各种机制，通过这些机制，互联网号码注册系统本身的结构、政策和流程可以不断发展，以满足全球互联网社区不断变化的需求。预计互联网号码登记系统将以公开、透明和广泛的多方利益相关者方式进一步发展。
Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]. These core
根据IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU[RFC2860]中规定的互联网地址政策问题责任划分，有关互联网号码注册系统结构、政策和流程演变的讨论将在ICANN框架内进行，并将尊重ICANN的核心价值观[ICANNBL]。这些核心
values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision making, as well as the delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this document.
价值观鼓励广泛、知情地参与各级政策制定和决策，反映互联网的功能、地理和文化多样性，并授权协调职能，承认反映受影响方利益的其他负责实体的政策作用。有关互联网号码注册发展的讨论还必须继续考虑本文档中引用的整体互联网地址体系结构和技术目标。
The foregoing does not alter the IETF's continued responsibility for the non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the architectural definition of IP address and AS number spaces and specification of associated technical goals and constraints in their application, assignment of specialized address blocks, and experimental technical assignments as documented in RFC 2860. In addition, in the cases where the IETF sets technical recommendations for protocols, practices, or services that are directly related to IP address space or AS numbers, such recommendations must be taken into consideration in Internet Numbers Registry System policy discussions regardless of venue.
上述内容不会改变IETF对互联网寻址的非政策方面的持续责任，如IP地址的体系结构定义、数字空间和相关技术目标的规范及其应用中的限制、专用地址块的分配，以及RFC 2860中记录的实验技术任务。此外，在IETF为与IP地址空间或AS号码直接相关的协议、实践或服务制定技术建议的情况下，无论地点如何，必须在互联网号码注册系统政策讨论中考虑这些建议。
Since RFC 2050 was published, the Internet and the Internet Numbers Registry System have undergone significant change. This document describes the Internet Numbers Registry System as it presently exists and omits policy and operational procedures that have been superseded by ICANN and RIR policy since the publication of RFC 2050.
自RFC 2050发布以来，互联网和互联网号码登记系统发生了重大变化。本文件描述了目前存在的互联网号码注册系统，并省略了自RFC 2050发布以来已被ICANN和RIR政策取代的政策和操作程序。
One particular change of note is that RFC 2050 defined an appeal process and included:
值得注意的一个特别变化是RFC 2050定义了上诉程序，包括：
If necessary, after exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may be forwarded to IANA for a final decision. Each registry must, as part of their policy, document and specify how to appeal a registry assignment decision.
如有必要，在用尽所有其他途径后，可将上诉转发给IANA，以便作出最终决定。作为其政策的一部分，每个登记处必须记录并说明如何对登记处分配决定提出上诉。
The RIRs have developed consensus-based policies for appeals, and over time, they have become accepted by the respective RIR communities. As a result, the ability to further appeal to IANA is no longer appropriate.
RIR制定了基于共识的上诉政策，随着时间的推移，这些政策已被各自的RIR社区所接受。因此，进一步向IANA上诉的能力不再合适。
It is generally recognized that accuracy and public availability of Internet registry data is often an essential component in researching and resolving security and operational issues on the Internet.
人们普遍认为，互联网登记数据的准确性和公开性往往是研究和解决互联网安全和运营问题的一个重要组成部分。
Several people have made comments on draft versions of this document. The authors would like to thank Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Daniel Karrenberg, Olaf Kolkman, Scott Bradner, Leslie Daigle, Adiel Akplogan, Mark Kosters, Elise Gerich, and SM for their constructive feedback and comments. Additionally, we are indebted to the authors of RFC 1466 and RFC 2050 for their earlier contributions in this area.
有几个人对这份文件的草稿发表了意见。作者要感谢兰迪·布什、布赖恩·卡彭特、丹尼尔·卡伦伯格、奥拉夫·科尔克曼、斯科特·布拉德纳、莱斯利·戴格尔、阿迪尔·阿克普洛根、马克·科斯特斯、埃莉斯·格里奇和SM的建设性反馈和评论。此外，我们感谢RFC 1466和RFC 2050的作者在这一领域的早期贡献。
[ASOMOU] Published by ICANN, "ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU", October 2004, <http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>.
[ASO MoU]由ICANN出版，“ICANN地址支持组织（ASO）MoU”，2004年10月<http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>.
[ICANNASN] Ratified by ICANN, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries", September 2010, <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/global-policy-asn-blocks-21sep10-en.htm>.
[ICANNASN]经ICANN批准，“互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）向区域互联网注册中心分配ASN区块的政策”，2010年9月<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/global-policy-asn-blocks-21sep10-en.htm>.
[ICANNBL] ICANN, "Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers", December 2012, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws>.
[ICANNBL]ICANN，“互联网名称和号码分配公司章程”，2012年12月<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws>.
[ICANNv4] Ratified by ICANN, "Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA", May 2012, <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/ global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion>.
[ICANNv4]经ICANN批准，“IANA关于IPv4耗尽后分配机制的全球政策”，2012年5月<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/ 全局寻址/分配-ipv4-post-EXTEATION>。
[ICANNv6] Ratified by ICANN, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy For Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries", September 2006, <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/ global-addressing/allocation-ipv6-rirs>.
[ICANNv6]经ICANN批准，“互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）向区域互联网注册中心分配IPv6数据块的政策”，2006年9月<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/ 全局寻址/分配-ipv6-rirs>。
[ICP-2] ICANN, "ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries", July 2001, <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm>.
[ICP-2]ICANN，“ICP-2：建立新区域互联网注册的标准”，2001年7月<http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[RFC2860]Carpenter，B.，Baker，F.和M.Roberts，“关于互联网分配号码管理局技术工作的谅解备忘录”，RFC 28602000年6月。
[RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, November 2000.
[RFC3013]Killalea，T.，“推荐的互联网服务提供商安全服务和程序”，BCP 46，RFC 3013，2000年11月。
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, September 2004.
[RFC3912]Daigle，L.，“WHOIS协议规范”，RFC 3912，2004年9月。
[RFC5855] Abley, J. and T. Manderson, "Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones", BCP 155, RFC 5855, May 2010.
[RFC5855]Abley，J.和T.Manderson，“IPv4和IPv6反向区域的名称服务器”，BCP 155，RFC 5855，2010年5月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Russ Housley Vigil Security, LLC 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon, VA 20170 USA
Russ Housley Vigil Security，LLC 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon，弗吉尼亚州，邮编20170
Phone: +1 703 435 1775
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Phone: +1 703 435 1775
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
John Curran American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 3635 Concorde Parkway Chantilly, VA 20151-1125 USA
约翰·科伦美国互联网号码登记处（ARIN）3635美国弗吉尼亚州尚蒂利协和公园路，邮编20151-1125
Phone: +1 703 227 9845
EMail: jcurran@arin.net
Phone: +1 703 227 9845
EMail: jcurran@arin.net
Geoff Huston Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 6 Cordelia St South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia
Geoff Huston亚太网络信息中心（APNIC）澳大利亚昆士兰州南布里斯班Cordelia街6号，邮编4101
Phone: +61 7 3858 3100
EMail: gih@apnic.net
Phone: +61 7 3858 3100
EMail: gih@apnic.net
David Conrad Virtualized, LLC 2310 Homestead Road, C1#204 Los Altos, CA 94024 USA
David Conrad Virtualized有限责任公司，地址：美国加利福尼亚州洛斯阿尔托斯市C1#204号家园路2310号，邮编：94024
Phone: +1 650 397 6102
EMail: drc@virtualized.org
Phone: +1 650 397 6102
EMail: drc@virtualized.org