Re: Easy to remember IP-address
Shane Kerr wrote:
To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right?
The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the rare case where someone asks for these.
As far as we're concerned we're going to follow all the necessary requirements and formalities needed for assignment of a block of IP-addreesses. We're ready to apply throught a standard procedure from the name of our company, or through one of the present LIRs. We could even get a status of a LIR for our company if needed and pay the initial fee and yearly fees. We hope that an assignment of the minimal IP block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24 (or 2.2.2.0/21) will not cause any routing problems, because the availability of this address from any part of the world will be achieved throught BGP Anycast.
Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no complaints....
We're trying to figure out if there are any reasons that make an assignment of the requested range technically challenged, but apparently there are any restrictions. According to this experiment of APNIC, described in the RIPE blog: http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18, engineers from the APNIC or RIPE NCC have a certain freemdom in experimenting with undistributed addresses like 1.1.1.1 (2.2.2.2) ? That means that theoretically it is possible to manually enter data in the RIPE database and manually distribute address 2.2.2.2 for it to find a really beneficial application for the internet community, and not just go away to another company that sets up something like DSL-connection pool, because for them vanity addresses are totally irrelevant. I'd like to point it out one more time that we're talking about a very useful and free DNS service for the end-users, that will allow millions of people from Russia and Europe to speed up DNS-requests and filter out untrustful websites like with malware and phishing content... Besides, we hope to provide services for parents preventing children from accessing forbidden websites. This alone will benefit millions of internet users too. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz@idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com
On 06/04/2010 07:49, Sergey Gotsulyak wrote:
We're trying to figure out if there are any reasons that make an assignment of the requested range technically challenged, but apparently there are any restrictions. According to this experiment of APNIC, described in the RIPE blog:
http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18,
engineers from the APNIC or RIPE NCC have a certain freemdom in experimenting with undistributed addresses like 1.1.1.1 (2.2.2.2) ?
Yes, they need to do this to ensure that the address space which is assigned is generally reachable from a variety of locations on the internet and that it isn't widely filtered in bgp.
That means that theoretically it is possible to manually enter data in the RIPE database and manually distribute address 2.2.2.2 for it to find a really beneficial application for the internet community,
All RIRs have the ability to choose what address space is assigned from what pool. The question you're asking is whether they would be prepared to single you out for preferential treatment by assigning you address space which has what you perceive to be higher commercial value than arbitrary addresses. I don't think there's any policy which states that the RIPE NCC can't do this. On the other hand, there may be operational reasons why they wouldn't: preferential treatment and assignment of potentially polluted address ranges being two that immediately spring to mind. Nick
[snip]
I don't think there's any policy which states that the RIPE NCC can't do this. On the other hand, there may be operational reasons why they wouldn't: preferential treatment and assignment of potentially polluted address ranges being two that immediately spring to mind.
For Sergey really, sorry Nick This whole vanity address idea is complete nonsense and shouldn't be entertained for a second. You'll get what you're given allocation-wise, though it's possible you'd be fortunate and get something memorable from the swamp I guess if someone's feeling nice- and then 'normal' space for the rest of your PA As far as I can gather there was cold hard cash exchanging hands for 8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4 - fine for some people and in the ARIN region it's a lot more liberal in that sense, but really I should think that RIPE have more pressing matters to deal with instead of trying to find a perhaps nonexistent clause that prevents you from wasting good peoples time It's a bad idea to set a precedent here, surely?
This whole vanity address idea is complete nonsense and shouldn't be entertained for a second.
In particular, it does not protect you from typographical errors. People can stil type in 22.2.2.2 and 2.2.32.2 and other variations. A far better way to protect against typos is to copy and paste the address. This could be done with any address at all displayed on a web page. If you really want a simple install experience you would do this with a downloadable application.
As far as I can gather there was cold hard cash exchanging hands for 8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4 - fine for some people and in the ARIN region it's a lot more liberal in that sense,
To be clear, nobody paid ARIN for those addresses. They were already allocated to an ISP who agreed to let the DNS provider use them. Ideco's goals could be met by simply using Google's DNS service, unless they have some other goal that they haven't told us yet. --Michael Dillon
I agree Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:08 PM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
This whole vanity address idea is complete nonsense and shouldn't be entertained for a second.
In particular, it does not protect you from typographical errors. People can stil type in 22.2.2.2 and 2.2.32.2 and other variations. A far better way to protect against typos is to copy and paste the address. This could be done with any address at all displayed on a web page.
If you really want a simple install experience you would do this with a downloadable application.
As far as I can gather there was cold hard cash exchanging hands for 8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4 - fine for some people and in the ARIN region it's a lot more liberal in that sense,
To be clear, nobody paid ARIN for those addresses. They were already allocated to an ISP who agreed to let the DNS provider use them.
Ideco's goals could be met by simply using Google's DNS service, unless they have some other goal that they haven't told us yet.
--Michael Dillon
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
As far as I can gather there was cold hard cash exchanging hands for 8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4 - fine for some people and in the ARIN region it's a lot more liberal in that sense,
To be clear, nobody paid ARIN for those addresses. They were already allocated to an ISP who agreed to let the DNS provider use them.
Sure - but if you were Level(3)/BBN/bla (not sure of specific history off the top of my head) would you do the SWIP or whatever for free, keeping the hole properly defined in filters/registry, etc? And for Google no less? :)
On 06/04/2010 13:50, Jess Kitchen wrote:
As far as I can gather there was cold hard cash exchanging hands for 8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4 - fine for some people and in the ARIN region it's a lot more liberal in that sense, but really I should think that RIPE have more pressing matters to deal with instead of trying to find a perhaps nonexistent clause that prevents you from wasting good peoples time
I have no issue with cold hard cash being exchanged for this, as long as the right part of the value chain gets the money and as long as the NCC follow policy when giving addresses (where address are taken from the appropriate pool based on size) to LIRs. How those LIRs then monetise that resource (as long as they also follow policy) is up to them. If Someone really wants 2.2.2.0/24 (or similar) then they need to wait until an LIR is given that address and approach them about buying a suitable service from that LIR that allows them access to that resource. That LIR *MUST* then follow the appropriate procedures and policies and as long as its justified then the allocation can be made. To be honest I can't see that 2.2.2.0/24 is any more attractive than 12.34.45.0/24 or 126.23.4.0/24 you are still going to have to give the details to a person via email or on a website so making the process of finding that information must surely be the most important part of the process. Remember that for DNS it really is a one of change of numbers during the setup of a PC/Device How long does it take to find the really memorable OpenDNS dns addresses with google? J -- James Blessing http://www.despres.co.uk/ 07989 039 476 Superbia in Proelio
participants (6)
-
James Blessing -
Jess Kitchen -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Sergey Gotsulyak -
Thabet