Allocation of number resources
Assume for the moment that there exists a provider, within the RIPE region, that has been allocated a sizeable IPv4 block. Let's say a /17, just for the sake of argument. Assume that this allocation was made to the provider, by RIPE NCC, some long time ago... Let's say early 2011. I would like to know the following things. If someone can answer these questions, please do: (1) What would have been the requirements, at that time (early 2011) that the provider would have had to meet in order to be allocated the /17 in question by RIPE NCC staff? (In the ARIN region, for IPv4 allocations there has been for some time various requirements in place that say that the provider being issued the address block must have some certain amount of hardware infrastructure in place in order to qualify for the allocation. Does RIPE have any similar rules? If so, then what are the rules, when did they go into effect, and what exactly does RIPE NCC staff do in order to actually enforce those rules, i.e. _prior_ to awarding an allocation to a given provider?) (2) If there are indeed requirements along the lines above, then are those requirements only in effect during and at the time of the initial allocation? Or is the provider who has been awarded an alloction either asked or required to maintain some certain amount of hardware infra- structure corresponding to the IPv4 address block allocation that it was awarded? (3) If there are indeed ``maintenance'' requirements along the lines in (2) above, then has there ever been a single publically documented instance in which a provider's failure to maintain the minimum required hardware infrastructure dedicated to some given IP address block allocation has caused the RIPE NCC to actually revoke the address block allocation in question? Regards, rfg
Dear Ronald,
(1) What would have been the requirements, at that time (early 2011) that the provider would have had to meet in order to be allocated the /17 in question by RIPE NCC staff? (In the ARIN region, for IPv4 allocations there has been for some time various requirements in place that say that the provider being issued the address block must have some certain amount of hardware infrastructure in place in order to qualify for the allocation. Does RIPE have any similar rules? If so, then what are the rules, when did they go into effect, and what exactly does RIPE NCC staff do in order to actually enforce those rules, i.e. _prior_ to awarding an allocation to a given provider?)
The RIPE Community's policies generally do not contain highly specific requirements such as minimum amounts of hardware and direct the RIPE NCC to allocate address space to LIRs at the rate that the addresses are assigned and/or sub-allocated to end-users by that LIR. In early 2011 a new LIR would receive as a first allocation the minimum allocation size, a /21, unless the LIR could demonstrate a need for a larger block. Such a need could be demonstrated in various ways, with proof of purchase of the right amount of hardware to deploy these addresses on being an obvious and often used one. Other ways to demonstrate a need include operating licenses granted by governments, contracts with providers, customers and/or partners and detailed deployment plans. Subsequent allocations are evaluated in a large part on the usage rate of previous allocations. Should an LIR have requested a much larger size additional allocation than their previous usage rate would indicate, additional documentation of their need would be requested. Today the RIPE NCC operates under the Last-/8 Policy, so we can only allocate a single /22 to each LIR, regardless of what size the LIR can justify.
(2) If there are indeed requirements along the lines above, then are those requirements only in effect during and at the time of the initial allocation? Or is the provider who has been awarded an allocation either asked or required to maintain some certain amount of hardware infra- structure corresponding to the IPv4 address block allocation that it was awarded?
An allocation to an LIR is a block that is reserved for future use of that LIR, its size based on past usage rate and/or specified future plans. Most LIR's businesses, however, are dynamic: Customers come and go, projects change, get cancelled and new projects get started. The RIPE policies take this into account and there is no requirement to keep some arbitrary minimum amount of hardware infrastructure. That said, when an LIR requests an additional allocation or when it is selected for a random audit, we verify the usage and validity of the existing assignments in the LIR's allocation(s).
(3) If there are indeed ``maintenance'' requirements along the lines in (2) above, then has there ever been a single publically documented instance in which a provider's failure to maintain the minimum required hardware infrastructure dedicated to some given IP address block allocation has caused the RIPE NCC to actually revoke the address block allocation in question?
There are no 'maintenance' requirements as such in the RIPE NCC service region and these can therefore not be grounds for de-registering an allocation to an LIR. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any others, please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards, Alex Le Heux Policy Implementation and Co-ordination RIPE NCC
In message <0C2184CC-2791-48C2-894C-C13E620BFE73@ripe.net>, Alex Le Heux <alexlh@ripe.net> wrote:
The RIPE Community's policies generally do not contain highly specific requirements such as minimum amounts of hardware and direct the RIPE NCC to allocate address space to LIRs at the rate that the addresses are assigned and/or sub-allocated to end-users by that LIR.
In early 2011 a new LIR would receive as a first allocation the minimum allocation size, a /21, unless the LIR could demonstrate a need for a larger block. Such a need could be demonstrated in various ways, with proof of purchase of the right amount of hardware to deploy these addresses on being an obvious and often used one. Other ways to demonstrate a need include operating licenses granted by governments, contracts with providers, customers and/or partners and detailed deployment plans.
Subsequent allocations are evaluated in a large part on the usage rate of previous allocations. Should an LIR have requested a much larger size additional allocation than their previous usage rate would indicate, additional documentation of their need would be requested.
I appreciate you taking the time to write the above answer, however I'm afraid that it has left me a bit confused. On the one hand, you say that "RIPE Community's policies generally do not contain highly specific requirements" with respect to justifying allocations, but then you go on to describe various ways that an LIR might actually justify it's alleged need.
An allocation to an LIR is a block that is reserved for future use of that LIR, its size based on past usage rate and/or specified future plans. Most LIR's businesses, however, are dynamic: Customers come and go, projects change, get cancelled and new projects get started. The RIPE policies take this into account and there is no requirement to keep some arbitrary minimum amount of hardware infrastructure.
So let me see if I understand this. If a given LIR had a spare /17 lying around... which they may have, e.g. because they were allocated that /17 by RIPE NCC for a project or customer than never actually materalized... then there is no RIPE community policy which would in any way prevent that LIR from sub-assigning that entire /17 to some customer who had exactly and only one router and one server. Is that correct?
There are no 'maintenance' requirements as such in the RIPE NCC service region and these can therefore not be grounds for de-registering an allocation to an LIR.
So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating resource known as the IPv4 address space. Is that correct? Regards, rfg P.S. Sorry. One more question... I don't know how RIPE operates, but ARIN make every effort to do things entiirely and only "by the book", so to speak, where "the book" is ARIN's own published and publically available policy manual. I'd just like to know if RIPE has an equivalent sort of published Policy Manual, and if so, where I might find it. Thanks.
Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating resource known as the IPv4 address space. Is that correct?
Correct. The community decided that "focus on IPv6 deployment" is more important than spending lots of (paid by members!) respources trying to get back IPv4 scraps here and there, which would only delay the inevitable. Aforesaid /17 would have made RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool last about 3 weeks longer - and in the end, no matter what we do, IPv4 would have run out, but we had burned a lot of extra effort trying to avoid facing IPv6. Gert Doering -- member of the community -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Well let us put it this way. The entities Ron's been thinking of have been doing this on the /15 scale for quite a while now, so I do think they should have quite a few /16s on the "use till it gets heavily blocked, get a new one from a RIPE LIR" principle. Three weeks here, three weeks there and you're looking at the best part of a year more at a conservative estimate. And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have. Ron - noticed some? And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well learn from our past experience as from anything else. On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating resource known as the IPv4 address space. Is that correct?
Correct. The community decided that "focus on IPv6 deployment" is more important than spending lots of (paid by members!) respources trying to get back IPv4 scraps here and there, which would only delay the inevitable.
Aforesaid /17 would have made RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool last about 3 weeks longer - and in the end, no matter what we do, IPv4 would have run out, but we had burned a lot of extra effort trying to avoid facing IPv6.
Gert Doering -- member of the community -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- --srs (iPad)
Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:29:59PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Well let us put it this way.
The entities Ron's been thinking of have been doing this on the /15 scale for quite a while now, so I do think they should have quite a few /16s on the "use till it gets heavily blocked, get a new one from a RIPE LIR" principle.
If a LIR comes back for "more space", and cannot plausibly document that their existing space is full (80%), then the RIPE NCC won't give them extra space - so in the example of a /17 lying around mostly unused, the LIR would find itself in a pretty painful position. We *do* encourage making use of the addresses, we just don't go out of our ways to active reclaim possible-unused space.
Three weeks here, three weeks there and you're looking at the best part of a year more at a conservative estimate.
A /16 is just not that much space. A /8 would be interesting, but even *that* isn't "a year more" (and even "a year more" would be the wrong signal, namely "yeah, there's more IPv4" - which will just get people to roll out more IPv4-only stuff that will need to be touched later).
And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have.
Ron - noticed some?
And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well learn from our past experience as from anything else.
I can do math (and learned that from experience). Can you? If a rogue LIR gets a fresh /29 every week, paying a full RIPE membership fee each time, RIPE's /12 will last about 2500 years. And then, there's about 500 more /12s inside FP 001, and *then*, we get about 6 more tries to make a more conservative IPv6 allocation policy. Should I care? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Maybe it'd be a grand idea to not extrapolate based on current usage trends. We just don't know what's going to turn up in the future - maybe 20..40 years or less down the line, and would hate to see history repeating itself. And if v4 and v6 exhaustion were the only reason to care about allocating number resources to rogue entities, I'd not care as much as I do about this. --srs On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
I can do math (and learned that from experience).
Can you?
If a rogue LIR gets a fresh /29 every week, paying a full RIPE membership fee each time, RIPE's /12 will last about 2500 years.
And then, there's about 500 more /12s inside FP 001, and *then*, we get about 6 more tries to make a more conservative IPv6 allocation policy.
Should I care?
-- --srs (iPad)
Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 06:14:01PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Maybe it'd be a grand idea to not extrapolate based on current usage trends.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, and see RIPE's /12 exhausted in 250 years, instead of 2500 years. After all, "using up IPv6" is not our largest current problem, "*not* using IPv6" is.
We just don't know what's going to turn up in the future - maybe 20..40 years or less down the line, and would hate to see history repeating itself.
And if v4 and v6 exhaustion were the only reason to care about allocating number resources to rogue entities, I'd not care as much as I do about this.
Then please don't make the exhaustion such a focal topic of your posts. I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their address space away, and that's what the NCC does. Now, "criminals" - and this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts). Fake registration data in itself is also enough to withdraw resources by the RIPE NCC (but it's not always obvious at registration time that a working postal address, telephon number, etc. are fake). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their address space away, and that's what the NCC does. Now, "criminals" - and this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts).
Ah, so the difference between spammers and other forms of online criminals like, say, botmasters I do however put it to you that there are plenty of email marketers who acquire IP space under their own business names, without having to create an endless series of shell companies to acquire outsize IP allocations. Does that mean RIPE NCC might want to, for example, have the dutch regulator that has a remit on antispam, OPTA, take a stand in this matter, if you are that concerned with penalizing genuine criminals rather than "people who send email that I don't like"? An interesting idea. --srs -- --srs (iPad)
Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:06:41PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their address space away, and that's what the NCC does. Now, "criminals" - and this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts).
Ah, so the difference between spammers and other forms of online criminals like, say, botmasters
Just an example, which makes it fairly obvious that a "criminal" to some is not a "criminal" to another. I neither like spammers nor botmasters, but the legal system in their country might make a difference.
I do however put it to you that there are plenty of email marketers who acquire IP space under their own business names, without having to create an endless series of shell companies to acquire outsize IP allocations.
Does that mean RIPE NCC might want to, for example, have the dutch regulator that has a remit on antispam, OPTA, take a stand in this matter, if you are that concerned with penalizing genuine criminals rather than "people who send email that I don't like"? An interesting idea.
The stance of the RIPE NCC is clear: if a judge decides that someone is a criminal, they are. Otherwise, they are not, and there is no lever to take away their addresses just by someone calling them a criminal. This is all documented, and the link to the RIPE NCC LIR closure document has been posted here by Athina before. This can be changed, of course - the RIPE NCC operates under a policy framework set by its constituency. Unfortunately, this constituency has been completely unable to agree on a definition of "abuse" (in a "checklist" sense: someone has to take this definition, apply it to a certain case, and come to a clear conclusion). So that's what we have: criminal by law, lying to the NCC as far as LIR registration details go, or no reason to withdraw IP address allocations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
In message <20130207125220.GG51699@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their address space away, and that's what the NCC does. Now, "criminals" - and this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts).
I feel quite certain that there is some... perhaps many... jurisdictions where launching and/or sustaining a DDoS is not in the least bit illegal. Should the organization, administration, and governance of an orderly Internet be held hostage to the lowest common denominator of whatever backwards underdeveloped country or local jurisdiction has adopted and implemented the weakest statutes with respect to abusive use of the Internet? If so, then I do believe that I shall be shortly be moving to Belize and opening up my own boutique DDoS-for-hire company. (Even within the "civilized" developed/industrialized nations of the world, I do not believe that I am at all alone in my view that the various members of the various legislative bodies of these countries, including my own, have shown themselves, over time, to be largely if not entirely incapable of making rational decisions with respect to what should or what should not be allowed in "cyberspace". If technical folks, such as us here, who actually have a prayer of actually under- standing the issues, abdicate governance of the Internet to these technically incompetent national legislatures, then we will get what we deserve in return for that, I think.)
Fake registration data in itself is also enough to withdraw resources by the RIPE NCC...
Please excuse my impertinence, but I have to ask... When? Regards, rfg
In message <20130207122029.GF51699@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
If a rogue LIR gets a fresh /29 every week...
My apologies for using the above as a jumping off point for a set of questions that are mostly unrelated to what Gert was talking about, but... Question: How may an independent researcher, such as myself, determine the entire set of address (IPv4 or IPv6) allocations that have been issued, by RIPE NCC, to a given LIR? Question: Given some pre-existing record for an IP{4,6} address block that exists, right now, within the RIPE WHOIS server, how may one determine which LIR, specifically, was responsible for assignment of that address block to the registered end user? If this information is not presently available within the RIPE WHOIS records, there is there any human being within RIPE NCC who can/will, upon request, supply this information? Question: Given some specific "admin-c" or "tech-c" contact handle, how may one determine the entire set of number resources that are, at present, associated with that given handle? Question: For the RIPE WHOIS server, is there some way to query the server in a way so that the only responses from the server will be strictly and only those records where there is an *exact match* of the "netname:" field to the query string (i.e, no implicit trailing wildcard)? Question: Within RIPE WHOIS records, may one organization use a par- ticular "netname" to designate its network, even if some different organization is already using that exact same "netname"? Thanks in advance for any and all answers. Regards, rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [...]
Question: How may an independent researcher, such as myself, determine the entire set of address (IPv4 or IPv6) allocations that have been issued, by RIPE NCC, to a given LIR?
Do an inverse lookup based on the LIR's Organisation object. Here's an example for the RIPE NCC: https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/query.html?searchtext=ORG-NCC1-RIPE&flags=&s ources=RIPE_NCC&grssources=&inverse=ORG&types=#resultsAnchor
Question: Given some pre-existing record for an IP{4,6} address block that exists, right now, within the RIPE WHOIS server, how may one determine which LIR, specifically, was responsible for assignment of that address block to the registered end user? If this information is not presently available within the RIPE WHOIS records, there is there any human being within RIPE NCC who can/will, upon request, supply this information?
Use the -L or -l flags to look up the allocation hierarchy.
Question: Given some specific "admin-c" or "tech-c" contact handle, how may one determine the entire set of number resources that are, at present, associated with that given handle?
Another inverse query. There's a handy web interface with clicky boxes if you prefer that to a command line client.
Question:
Have you considered looking at the extensive documentation and training materials on the RIPE NCC's web site? Alternatively, if you don't want to read instructional materials, database help questions might be more appropriately directed at the db-help list: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/db-help Regards, Leo
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EFE3B4F17@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.o rg>, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Question: How may an independent researcher, such as myself, determine the entire set of address (IPv4 or IPv6) allocations that have been issued, by RIPE NCC, to a given LIR?
Do an inverse lookup based on the LIR's Organisation object. Here's an example for the RIPE NCC:
https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/query.html?searchtext=ORG-NCC1-RIPE&flags=&s ources=RIPE_NCC&grssources=&inverse=ORG&types=#resultsAnchor
Ummmm... I went to the exact URL you gave above and all I get is: Error: No results were found for your search. Your search details may be too selective. Well, it doesn't matter anyway. What I would really like is a solution that I can use with the good-old-fashioned WHOIS server... _not_ via the web interface. How can I find all IPv{4,6} allocations assigned to a given LIR using the actual WHOIS server? (An actual example would be most helpful.)
Question: Given some pre-existing record for an IP{4,6} address block that exists, right now, within the RIPE WHOIS server, how may one determine which LIR, specifically, was responsible for assignment of that address block to the registered end user? If this information is not presently available within the RIPE WHOIS records, there is there any human being within RIPE NCC who can/will, upon request, supply this information?
Use the -L or -l flags to look up the allocation hierarchy.
OK! Duh! I should have known that. thanks.
Question: Given some specific "admin-c" or "tech-c" contact handle, how may one determine the entire set of number resources that are, at present, associated with that given handle?
Another inverse query. There's a handy web interface with clicky boxes if you prefer that to a command line client.
No, I greatly prefer what you are calling the "command line interface", which is, I assme, what I am calling the good-old-fashioned WHOIS service (TCP port 43).
Question:
Have you considered looking at the extensive documentation and training materials on the RIPE NCC's web site?
I did, actually. It is not the most clear piece of technical documentation I have ever encountered. But I will give it another try. Regards, rfg
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: Or, you can just get the file ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt and look for the lir and see their resources.
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15EFE3B4F17@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.o rg>, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Question: How may an independent researcher, such as myself, determine the entire set of address (IPv4 or IPv6) allocations that have been issued, by RIPE NCC, to a given LIR?
Do an inverse lookup based on the LIR's Organisation object. Here's an example for the RIPE NCC:
https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/query.html?searchtext=ORG-NCC1-RIPE&flags=&s ources=RIPE_NCC&grssources=&inverse=ORG&types=#resultsAnchor
Ummmm... I went to the exact URL you gave above and all I get is:
Error: No results were found for your search. Your search details may be too selective.
Well, it doesn't matter anyway. What I would really like is a solution that I can use with the good-old-fashioned WHOIS server... _not_ via the web interface.
How can I find all IPv{4,6} allocations assigned to a given LIR using the actual WHOIS server? (An actual example would be most helpful.)
Question: Given some pre-existing record for an IP{4,6} address block that exists, right now, within the RIPE WHOIS server, how may one determine which LIR, specifically, was responsible for assignment of that address block to the registered end user? If this information is not presently available within the RIPE WHOIS records, there is there any human being within RIPE NCC who can/will, upon request, supply this information?
Use the -L or -l flags to look up the allocation hierarchy.
OK! Duh! I should have known that. thanks.
Question: Given some specific "admin-c" or "tech-c" contact handle, how may one determine the entire set of number resources that are, at present, associated with that given handle?
Another inverse query. There's a handy web interface with clicky boxes if you prefer that to a command line client.
No, I greatly prefer what you are calling the "command line interface", which is, I assme, what I am calling the good-old-fashioned WHOIS service (TCP port 43).
Question:
Have you considered looking at the extensive documentation and training materials on the RIPE NCC's web site?
I did, actually. It is not the most clear piece of technical documentation I have ever encountered. But I will give it another try.
Regards, rfg
-- Mvh Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/ mail: info@resilans.se , fredrik@resilans.se phone: +46 8 688 11 82
* Fredrik Widell:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Or, you can just get the file
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt
and look for the lir and see their resources.
Allocated resources do not always tell the full story. Ideally, you also want provider-independent assignments for which the LIR pays the fee, and the resources controlled by the LIR which RIPE NCC has exempted from billing (ERX mainly, but perhaps there are others).
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fredrik Widell:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Or, you can just get the file
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt
and look for the lir and see their resources.
Allocated resources do not always tell the full story. Ideally, you also want provider-independent assignments for which the LIR pays the fee, and the resources controlled by the LIR which RIPE NCC has exempted from billing (ERX mainly, but perhaps there are others).
You will probably get most of the resources by querying the objects the lir maintains aswell by this query: whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "-B -r -i mnt-by,mnt-routes,mnt-domains,mnt-lower,mnt-irt THE-LIR-MAINTAINER"
-- Mvh Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/ mail: info@resilans.se , fredrik@resilans.se phone: +46 8 688 11 82
* Fredrik Widell:
You will probably get most of the resources by querying the objects the lir maintains aswell by this query:
whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "-B -r -i mnt-by,mnt-routes,mnt-domains,mnt-lower,mnt-irt THE-LIR-MAINTAINER"
As far as I understand it, MNT handles are issued to non-LIRs as well, so this doesn't necessarily show the whole story.
In message <CAArzuosa4zGis9B64Ky8OTh6Wc1EM+qxcqTZYgCsL3=U_3FBEw@mail.gmail.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have.
Ron - noticed some?
Only a tiny amount. I'm sorry, but I can't talk about that just yet.
And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well learn from our past experience as from anything else.
Although I appreciate the responses from both Suresh and also Gert Doering to my question about whether or not any policy exists allowing RIPE NCC to reclaim IPv4 space that is being squandered, both replies seem to start from the assmption that the proper way to judge whether a robust reclamation policy is warranted or not is to perform a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the "cost" aspect is _only_ that some IPv4 (or IPv6) address space is wasted and not available for other uses. Personally, I think that this view is too narrow, and I am frankly a bit surprised to find such a view prevalent on and within the mailing list of a purported "anti abuse" working group. Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet? And additionally, is conservation of (precious?) number resources the only rationale that might ever be the basis for reclamation actions with respect to said resources? Both here and within the ARIN region, discussions of the abuse of number resources always seem to devolve down to religious arguments about the value of IPv4 versus IPv6... and I see now that I am as much to blame for that as anybody, because I have often raised the issue of IPv4 exhaustion in the hopes that it might motivate people to care more, at least about cases of clear abuse of IPv4 address resources. But it occurs to me now this really misses the true issue. If I were to find a great big snowshoe spamming operation that was operating strictly and only from within IPv6 address space, would I want its IPv6 address allocation revoked? You bet I would! So also, I would hope, would everyone else on this list and in this "anti abuse" working group. Regards, rfg
On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <CAArzuosa4zGis9B64Ky8OTh6Wc1EM+qxcqTZYgCsL3=U_3FBEw@mail.gmail.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have.
Ron - noticed some?
Only a tiny amount. I'm sorry, but I can't talk about that just yet.
And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well learn from our past experience as from anything else.
Although I appreciate the responses from both Suresh and also Gert Doering to my question about whether or not any policy exists allowing RIPE NCC to reclaim IPv4 space that is being squandered, both replies seem to start from the assmption that the proper way to judge whether a robust reclamation policy is warranted or not is to perform a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the "cost" aspect is _only_ that some IPv4 (or IPv6) address space is wasted and not available for other uses.
Personally, I think that this view is too narrow, and I am frankly a bit surprised to find such a view prevalent on and within the mailing list of a purported "anti abuse" working group.
Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet?
The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined. However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources. I think Gert referenced Athina Fragkouli's emails and presentations to the WG on this matter. The slides from the presentation from RIPE61 are here: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/281-Closure_of_LIRs_and_deregistration_... and the final document is here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-517 Brian
In message <51151006.3070401@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet?
The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined.
What would be the process for initiating such a change?
However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources.
So, if I have understood you, you are saying that this WG has already been advocating for the denial of resources, generally, to those who abuse the Internet, correct?
and the final document is here:
It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-541 I am studying it with more than a little facination. Already, my attention has been drawn to two specific segments of this document: B.1.1.b Invalidity of original allocation/assignment criteria Internet number resources are allocated/assigned based on a specific need. When the original technical requirements or the business purpose for the use of the Internet number resources change, the allocation/ assignment becomes invalid. If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the original technical criteria or the original business purposes for using the Internet number resources, the RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister the relevant Internet number resources. B.1.1.e Fraudulent request If a Member has submitted a fraudulent request for an allocation or an Independent resource (for example, by providing incorrect purpose/ need or falsified information about the network, etc.), the RIPE NCC will deregister the relevant records. Personally, I have slightly more than a passing familiarity with U.S. law, and I am aware that within U.S. law, even tiny details (i.e. individual words) can make a great difference to interpretation. Thus, I am forced to ask if the difference in language between the two sections above was/is deliberate or not. On the one hand, the first section says that "...RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister..." while on the other hand the second section says that "... RIPE NCC will deregister...". The latter is obviously stronger than the former. Was that deliberate or inadvertant? (Note that this difference in language is mirrored again in sections B.1.2.c and B.1.2.f.) I am also curious about this passage from B.1.1.b: "If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the original technical criteria or the original business purposes for using the Internet number resources...". I gather that the purpose of the online web reporting form I have heard tell about is supposed to be a way in which random citizens, such as myself, can cause or induce RIPE NCC to "notice" that a given assigneee is not using its number resources in conformance with "the original technical criteria or the original business purposes". Is that correct? Assming so, could someone please send me the URL of that again. Thanks. Regards, rfg P.S. Regarding the earlier discussion as to publication of all reports made to RIPE NCC via that form... yes... I see now how that could be invaluable. Without that, the reports could easily fall into a black hole, never to be heard from again, _even_ in cases where Sections B.1.1.e and B.1.2.f of the above document seem to _require_ action on the part of RIPE NCC.
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07:
In message <51151006.3070401@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet?
The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined.
What would be the process for initiating such a change?
The best way to do it would likely be for a member of the WG to talk to the the chairs with some suggestions and we can discuss it from there. But ultimately the WG endorses the charter, so if the WG wants a change, then a change they shall have.
However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources.
So, if I have understood you, you are saying that this WG has already been advocating for the denial of resources, generally, to those who abuse the Internet, correct?
That's an extremely simple description of a very complex position. It has generally been the position that those who abuse the network should not do so and things should be put in place to make it possible for resources to be reclaimed, where necessary and appropriate.
and the final document is here:
It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists:
Sorry, my mistake, I picked the wrong version. 541 has also been updated: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-578 Can you just check your questions still apply to this version? Brian
In message <5116686A.8020208@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07:
In message <51151006.3070401@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined.
What would be the process for initiating such a change?
The best way to do it would likely be for a member of the WG to talk to the the chairs with some suggestions and we can discuss it from there. But ultimately the WG endorses the charter, so if the WG wants a change, then a change they shall have.
Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to modify the charter in the manner described. I nontheless hope that some member in good standing will see fit to do so. Regards, rfg
Hi,
Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to modify the charter in the manner described. I nontheless hope that some member in good standing will see fit to do so.
You're wrong there: if you are on this mailing list then you are part of the WG. There is no formal membership or anything like that. Just people working together. You don't have to be the one to make a motion to modify the charter, but feel free to do so if you want to. Cheers, Sander
In message <F8C0B65D-DF17-42A5-8A46-98320B795704@steffann.nl>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
rfg wrote:
Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to modify the charter in the manner described. I nontheless hope that some member in good standing will see fit to do so.
You're wrong there: if you are on this mailing list then you are part of the WG. There is no formal membership or anything like that. Just people working together. You don't have to be the one to make a motion to modify the charter, but feel free to do so if you want to.
Very well. Please consider it so moved. Again, for clarity, the proposal is that the formal charter of this group be amended to include language which states explicitly that this group may (or shall) work towards the goal, among others, of seeing to it that the use and/or registration of any and all forms of Internet number resources shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet. Regards, rfg P.S. Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial, then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly meaningless. If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers, and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number resources. (I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 07.43, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <F8C0B65D-DF17-42A5-8A46-98320B795704@steffann.nl>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
rfg wrote:
Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to modify the charter in the manner described. I nontheless hope that some member in good standing will see fit to do so.
You're wrong there: if you are on this mailing list then you are part of the WG. There is no formal membership or anything like that. Just people working together. You don't have to be the one to make a motion to modify the charter, but feel free to do so if you want to.
Very well. Please consider it so moved.
Again, for clarity, the proposal is that the formal charter of this group be amended to include language which states explicitly that this group may (or shall) work towards the goal, among others, of seeing to it that the use and/or registration of any and all forms of Internet number resources shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet.
Regards, rfg
P.S. Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial, then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly meaningless. If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers, and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number resources.
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
Wrong ! Sending Spam ( unsolicited massmail ) has been unacceptable since 1985 and was once punished with "Internet Deathpenalty"( isolation ). Today Spam seems to be ignored since we pay dearly for mechanical ways of filtering, with varying success. Still Spam is not even a crime in many countries, and in others like sweden it's not really investigated nor punished. Spam is in addition to marketing purposes sometimes used as a vehicle for fraud or virus but it's still Spam. Why don't we do something against it ???
-- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
In message <201302120818.58387.peter@hk.ipsec.se>, peter h <peter@hk.ipsec.se> wrote:
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
Wrong ! Sending Spam ( unsolicited massmail ) has been unacceptable since 1985 and was once punished with "Internet Deathpenalty"( isolation ).
Today Spam seems to be ignored since we pay dearly for mechanical ways of f iltering, with varying success. Still Spam is not even a crime in many countries, and in others like sweden it's not really investigated nor punished.
Spam is in addition to marketing purposes sometimes used as a vehicle for f raud or virus but it's still Spam.
Why don't we do something against it ???
I am not at all sure who, exactly, you were adressing your comments to. If you had intended them for me... well... all I can say is that you are attempting to sell your point of view to the Wrong Guy. Personally, I was already convinced quite a long time ago that spam is an awful scourge, and I've personally done much over the past 18 years to try to thwart it, and those who send it... more than most, I do believe. Regards, rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 06:43:
In message <F8C0B65D-DF17-42A5-8A46-98320B795704@steffann.nl>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
rfg wrote:
Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to modify the charter in the manner described. I nontheless hope that some member in good standing will see fit to do so.
You're wrong there: if you are on this mailing list then you are part of the WG. There is no formal membership or anything like that. Just people working together. You don't have to be the one to make a motion to modify the charter, but feel free to do so if you want to.
Very well. Please consider it so moved.
Again, for clarity, the proposal is that the formal charter of this group be amended to include language which states explicitly that this group may (or shall) work towards the goal, among others, of seeing to it that the use and/or registration of any and all forms of Internet number resources shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet.
Ok. The more precise any wording changes can be made, the better, and I'm more than willing to help with this. We can also probably work on the above.
P.S. Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial, then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly meaningless. If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers, and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number resources.
I've seen various definitions of "abuse of the Internet" from various different parties and, indeed, the conversations over definitions have been both fruitless and lengthy.
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
See above, although I suspect we could add some examples to the non-exhaustive list already on the charter, which was the intent when it was written. That may be as close as we get. Brian Co-Chair, AA-WG
In message <5119FEE5.8050800@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 06:43:
Again, for clarity, the proposal is that the formal charter of this group be amended to include language which states explicitly that this group may (or shall) work towards the goal, among others, of seeing to it that the use and/or registration of any and all forms of Internet number resource s shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet.
Ok. The more precise any wording changes can be made, the better, and I'm more than willing to help with this. We can also probably work on the above.
Thank you for your willingness to help.
P.S. Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial, then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly meaningless. If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers, and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number resources.
I've seen various definitions of "abuse of the Internet" from various different parties and, indeed, the conversations over definitions have been both fruitless and lengthy.
My assumption is that at the end, there must have been at least _some_ agreement with regards to at least a minimalist definition of the term "Internet abuse". Elsewise, I would guess that this WG would have been utterly disbanded by now, you know, for lack of direction.
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
See above, although I suspect we could add some examples to the non-exhaustive list already on the charter, which was the intent when it was written. That may be as close as we get.
Speaking of "the charter"... I had refered to this earlier, I confess, without even having seen it myself. I just assumed that some such thing must necessarily exist somewhere, in writing. Bu I am searching for it now, online, and I'm not finding what I think I am looking for. Sincerely I must ask: Is that my own fault? (Maybe Google just simply isn't taking me to the Right Places.) I found this page: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse but nothing on that seems to either contain or refer to any explicit WG charter. The above page does however, curiously, contain a link to an apparently now defunct WG, whose page _does_ contain an explicit written charter: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/inactive-working-groups/anti-spam-working-gr... Am I missing something? Regards, rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 23:25:
In message <5119FEE5.8050800@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 06:43:
P.S. Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial, then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly meaningless. If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers, and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number resources.
I've seen various definitions of "abuse of the Internet" from various different parties and, indeed, the conversations over definitions have been both fruitless and lengthy.
My assumption is that at the end, there must have been at least _some_ agreement with regards to at least a minimalist definition of the term "Internet abuse". Elsewise, I would guess that this WG would have been utterly disbanded by now, you know, for lack of direction.
Minimalist definitions, yes, but we have found it useful to not try to pin things down too much as that widens the scope of what we can talk about and doesn't alienate sections of the community.
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
See above, although I suspect we could add some examples to the non-exhaustive list already on the charter, which was the intent when it was written. That may be as close as we get.
Speaking of "the charter"...
I had refered to this earlier, I confess, without even having seen it myself. I just assumed that some such thing must necessarily exist somewhere, in writing.
Bu I am searching for it now, online, and I'm not finding what I think I am looking for. Sincerely I must ask: Is that my own fault? (Maybe Google just simply isn't taking me to the Right Places.)
I found this page:
The main text of that page is the WG Charter. It may be useful to be more explicit on this, but that is the charter. Brian
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [...]
(I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute "abuse of the Internet". If that is correct, then offhand I would have to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be, would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above all else. I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
I think you just made the case for dissolving the AAWG, :-) under *your* assumption that the Community on the Internet will be able to come up with a *unified definition* and *central management* of "abuse of the Internet". Wilfried.
In message <5116686A.8020208@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07:
It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists:
Sorry, my mistake, I picked the wrong version. 541 has also been updated:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-578
Can you just check your questions still apply to this version?
Yes, they still do apply. I would still like to know why Section B.1.b apparently says that RIPE NCC _might_ reclaim the improperly allocated resources whereas Section B.1.e says quite clearly that RIPE NCC "will" reclaim the resources. Again, my question is: Was this difference in wording intentional and deliberate? Or was it inadvertant and unintended? Regards, rfg
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 09/02/2013 20:33:
In message <5116686A.8020208@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07:
It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists:
Sorry, my mistake, I picked the wrong version. 541 has also been updated:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-578
Can you just check your questions still apply to this version?
Yes, they still do apply.
I would still like to know why Section B.1.b apparently says that RIPE NCC _might_ reclaim the improperly allocated resources whereas Section B.1.e says quite clearly that RIPE NCC "will" reclaim the resources.
Again, my question is: Was this difference in wording intentional and deliberate? Or was it inadvertant and unintended?
If the NCC, who authored the document, don't come along and answer soon, I'll take it up with them directly. Brian
participants (11)
-
Alex Le Heux -
Brian Nisbet -
Florian Weimer -
Fredrik Widell -
Gert Doering -
Leo Vegoda -
peter h -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Sander Steffann -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Wilfried Woeber