[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Functions Usage Analysis

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Fri Jun 12 21:03:48 UTC 2015

Dear all, 

I neglected to forward you this blog post earlier, but I am sending along
now since it is relevant to our discussions in the CWG. If you have any
questions, I¹ve copied the author, Alain Durand, who joined ICANN a few
months ago and is following the work of the CWG.

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-functions-usage-analysis

IANA Functions Usage Analysis

When I joined ICANN a few months ago and learned that part of my role would
be supporting the IANAStewardship Transition process, I wanted to learn more
about how those functions are actually operated and how much the community
uses them. My background has been in the IETF for 20+ years where I chaired
several working groups and authored a number of RFC¹s, so I have always
known the IANAregistries as a user of the functions, however I was not very
intimate with its internal operation.
The IANA department performs a set of tasks that involves the coordination
of many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate.
Notably, it maintains registries, which are most often simply text files,
for three Internet communities: the Domain Names community, the Numbering
Resources community (including the Regional Internet Registries or RIRs) and
the Protocol Parameters community (including the Internet Engineering Task
Force or IETF). In total, the IANA department maintains more than 2,800
I looked back at the various statistics available and compiled usage data
over the last five years ­ and I was surprised at how little I knew about
the scope of the work being done there. I hope the result of this study will
also be helpful to all of those in the community that are actively involved
in the transition process.
I. Domain Names Community
Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs)
Requests about ccTLDs can be classified broadly into two categories,
depending on the workload they generate: ccTLD (re-)delegations and ccTLD
changes such as administrative or technical contact changes and DS record
Generic TLDs (gTLDs)
Similarly, gTLD requests can be classified broadly in two categories: gTLD
(re-)delegations and gTLDchanges such as administrative or technical contact
changes, and name server or DS record updates. On this graph, we clearly see
the impact of the introduction of new gTLDs.
II. Numbers Community
IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)
The numbers community requests IPv4 unicast address blocks, IPv6 unicast
address blocks and blocks of Autonomous Systems Numbers (ASNs). Large IPv6
unicast address blocks were requested by the RIRs prior to 2010 and no
additional requests have yet been received. IANA¹s pool of unallocated IPv4
unicast addresses was exhausted in 2011, however since that date, a few IPv4
unicast address blocks were returned to ICANN and later redistributed to the
RIRs according to global policies.
III. Protocol Parameters Community
IETF Registries
The vast majority of the registries maintained by ICANN as the IANA function
operator are for protocol parameters defined and used by the IETF.
Private Enterprise Numbers
The most heavily used IETF protocol parameter registry is for Private
Enterprise Numbers (PENs). PENs are typically used in Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Information Base (MIB) configurations.
To make the diagram easier to read, I¹ve separated the PEN requests from the
other IETFrequests.
IV. Total usage
This final graph represents a picture of all the requests processed for all
of the three communities ­ Domain Names, Numbering Resources and Protocol
Parameters ­ over the last 5 years. Note, to make the graph easier to read,
the cc-TLDs and gTLDs delegations/re-delegations are shown on a secondary
axis, on the right hand side of the graph. As you can see from the graph
with the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests related to
delegations/re-delegations of TLDs has grown substantially. Requests from
the Numbering Resources community have remained flat, and we are seeing an
upswing in Protocol Parameter requests after a lull in mid-2012. Overall,
with the exception of the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests
related to the IANA functions has remained very predictable over a five-year

Again, I hope that you found this data helpful, as I know I did, to
understand the scope of the IANAfunctions. Those functions are critical to
maintain the security and stability of the Internet.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150612/04b84bc3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150612/04b84bc3/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list