July 1993 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Workshop for local-IRs
by Anne Lord 05 Aug '93

05 Aug '93

Dear All, At the last RIPE meeting there was a proposal to hold a "local-ir workshop". The idea behind this was to share experiences on running a local registry: trading war-stories and funny experiences, develop a common feeling on what should and should not be escalated to the NCC etc. We have just had someone asking whether this is still planned for the next RIPE meeting. Daniel is the chairman of the group and also on holiday, so we decided that you could decide. So can you let me know if you would still like to see this workshop happen. It would probably be scheduled for the first day of the RIPE meeting in the morning. ie. Wednesday 15th. Prompt replies would be very much appreciated :-) let me know what you think, cheers, Anne

2 1

Re: The addition of guarded fields
by Tony Bates 27 Jul '93

27 Jul '93

bonito(a)nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * I think we, as part of the european networking community, should pursue * the spreading of technical knowledge among network providers and * network operators. IP routing is not a trivial issue for the time being, * and the best results in routing coordination is obtained, in my opinion, * when the largest possible number of network operators do the right thing. * This is the spirit of the Internet, I think. * The NCC is a neutral organizations but this does not mean they should * act on behalf of network operators. The net result could be a minor * diffusion of relevant technical knowledge. * Service providers and even large network users communities should know * what they are doing when registering networks, creating guarded fields. * * Also, local registries (down the tree from the NCC) must improve their * efficiency. The Internet is growing very very fast in Europe and we * have to use solutions that scale. A do-all NCC is not the solution, I guess * . * I think the NCC is going is the opposite direction (i.e. proposing * the PRIDE project, which I feel a very important activity in the next futur * e) * Thought I'd comment on this a little as I'm currently working on much stronger syntax checking for the new databsse software. Whilst it is not complete it's pretty careful and it raises exactly the point Blasco brings up. Here are the basic results on the Database breaking them down by object. Object Errors Oks Warnings Total (% in error) aut-num 47 47 0 94 50.0 bdry-gw 0 7 0 7 0.0 domain 1284 913 0 2197 58.4 inetnum 899 8566 0 9465 9.5 person 1087 8824 10 9921 11.0 rout-pr 0 3 0 3 0.0 This is pretty bad as you can see. This includes much stronger checking of mandatory fields and syntax as they are written in the documents which is why the aut-num is high as we currently have a lot of missing mandatory fields. Once the new software is in place the syntax checker will spot all of these. However, it still remains that many entries are submitted without even checking the syntax of the object. At some point we must also remove these errors although this needs some careful thinking about. Any ideas ? Of course one can argue that stronger syntax checking should have been done from day one but it is historic as part of this original software was done before their was an NCC. However, please can we all try to be careful with updates at least til' the software is fully in place ;-). --Tony.

1 0

RE: Workshop for local-IRs
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 23 Jul '93

23 Jul '93

Dear Anne, >We have just had someone asking whether this is still planned for the >next RIPE meeting. Daniel is the chairman of the group and also on >holiday, so we decided that you could decide. So can you let me know if >you would still like to see this workshop happen. It would probably >be scheduled for the first day of the RIPE meeting in the morning. >ie. Wednesday 15th. > >Prompt replies would be very much appreciated :-) I'd be really interested to attend on Wednesday 15th, in the morning. Wilfried.

1 0

Re: Workshop for local-IRs
by Erik-Jan.Bos＠SURFnet.nl 23 Jul '93

23 Jul '93

Anne, > At the last RIPE meeting there was a proposal to hold a "local-ir > workshop". The idea behind this was to share experiences on running > a local registry: trading war-stories and funny experiences, > develop a common feeling on what should and should not be escalated > to the NCC etc. > > We have just had someone asking whether this is still planned for the > next RIPE meeting. Daniel is the chairman of the group and also on > holiday, so we decided that you could decide. So can you let me know if > you would still like to see this workshop happen. It would probably > be scheduled for the first day of the RIPE meeting in the morning. > ie. Wednesday 15th. Sounds great to me. I heart some rumors that it would be on Tuesday 14th, but I vote for Wednesday 15th (although it is close to home for me :-) ). > Prompt replies would be very much appreciated :-) Prompt enough?! __ Erik-Jan.

1 0

Request for Information re: Internet Service Providers
by Marten Terpstra 19 Jul '93

19 Jul '93

------- Forwarded Message Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Susan Estrada <sestrada(a)nic.cerf.net> Sender: ietf-request(a)IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US To: ietf(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US cc: Susan Estrada <sestrada(a)nic.cerf.net> Subject: Request for Information re: Internet Service Providers I am writing a book called Connecting to the Internet: A Buyer's Guide. I will be including a list (DLIST) of dedicated line providers to make it easy for the reader to find a connection. If you have a network and I have not already contacted you, I need the information at the end of this message for your network. If you would like to add your information, please reply by Tuesday, July 20, noon. The book is going to be published by O'Reilly and Associates and should be available in August. The list will be made available on the Internet courtesy of O'Reilly upon completion. Details are forthcoming about how to get updates of DLIST or add your network information in the future. This message should be forwarded to anyone you think should see it. Thanks for your assistance. Susan Estrada sestrada(a)cerf.net - -------------------------- Network Name: Service Area: Contact: Voice: email: FTP more info: Network Description (short paragraph): ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Request for Information re: Internet Service Providers
by Susan Estrada 17 Jul '93

17 Jul '93

I am writing a book called Connecting to the Internet: A Buyer's Guide. I will be including a list (DLIST) of dedicated line providers to make it easy for the reader to find a connection. If you have a network and I have not already contacted you, I need the information at the end of this message for your network. If you would like to add your information, please reply by Tuesday, July 20, noon. The book is going to be published by O'Reilly and Associates and should be available in August. The list will be made available on the Internet courtesy of O'Reilly upon completion. Details are forthcoming about how to get updates of DLIST or add your network information in the future. This message should be forwarded to anyone you think should see it. Thanks for your assistance. Susan Estrada sestrada(a)cerf.net -------------------------- Network Name: Service Area: Contact: Voice: email: FTP more info: Network Description (short paragraph):

1 0

RIPE NCC Quarterly Report #5 Available
by Daniel Karrenberg 16 Jul '93

16 Jul '93

[sorry for the slight duplication] Dear colleagues, the 5th RIPE NCC Quarterly Report covering the second quarter of 1993 is now available. It has document-ID: ripe-90 and can be retrieved from the ripe document store. The files are: ftp.ripe.net:ripe/docs/ripe-docs/ripe-90.ps (PostScript) ftp.ripe.net:ripe/docs/ripe-docs/ripe-90.txt (ASCII) Should you have difficulties retrieveing it, we will be happy to help you with retrieval via the network or send you a hardcopy. The management summary part is attached below. Kind Regards Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC Manager ---- Management Summary The European Internet continues to grow steadily as the number of hosts registered in the domain name system will be in excess of 400,000 at the end of the reporting period. All NCC activities have run smoothly during the reporting period. Delegated Registry The number of local registries has increased to some 61. Together with the NCC they have assigned 3511 class C and 14 class B network numbers during the reporting period. Still only about 10% of the assigned networks are routed on the Internet while usage of the internet protocols and thus demand for addresses continues to expand in all areas. Since the European registry system runs smoothly, the highest priority in this area remains automatic alignment of regis try databases with the global Internet registry. RIPE Database There are now more that 30,000 objects in the RIPE database and the NCC is still processing around 500 update requests on an average working day. A complete re-design of the database software has been completed and implementation is progressing. Additional efforts to increase database coverage and to provide pro-active maintenance are required. This and the software implementation will be the highest priorities during the next quarter. Documentation The document store is running reliably and is being used worldwide. In addition to a number of new RIPE documents a leaflet describing registry services has been produced. Joint Projects The two running projects have almost completed and are successful. While the projects have been very valuable to the NCC and vice-versa they have required more resources from permanent NCC staff than expected. A follow up project PRIDE (Policy-Based Routing Implementation and Deployment in Europe) has been proposed with this experience in mind. Funding for this project has been secured almost completely. The NCC has started its second year of operation successfully continuing a high level of service. We are looking forward to the results of the first-year review and to the subsequent revision of the NCC activity plan. Based on the growing European Internet community and the increasing demand for service and new activities, the NCC will need additional resources in the medium term.

1 0

Re: (Non)-Uniqueness of Net Names
by Gartha S. Parrish 08 Jul '93

08 Jul '93

I agree with Daniel that unique network names do serve a purpose. In addition to making it easier to discuss a specific network, there is a recognition factor associated with a network name that just does not exist with an internet address. I have discovered many errors because a net name didn't look right and when I checked, there was either a typo or some kind of mix-up with the number/numbers. I would hate to see this error-checking "feature" removed. I would vote for keeping network names unique at least to the level of the organization or site. This would leave the level of granularity up to individual organizations. Network names would still be registered in the InterNIC and RIPE whois databases, and multiples would appear much as a block entry looks now. This would also be helpful in cases where troubleshooting is needed and either administrative or technical contacts must be reached. Gartha Parrish NSFNET/MERIT ================================================================

2 1

(Non)-Uniqueness of Net Names
by Daniel Karrenberg 07 Jul '93

07 Jul '93

Any strong opinions? I'll answer the factual questions. Daniel ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 23:14:10 -0400 From: Mark Knopper <mak(a)merit.edu> Resent-From: RIPE NCC Staff <ncc(a)ripe.net> To: ncc(a)ripe.net, merit-ie(a)merit.edu, conf(a)merit.edu, dsj(a)merit.edu, markk(a)internic.net, scottw(a)internic.net Resent-To: RIPE NCC Staff <staff(a)ripe.net> Subject: (Non)-Uniqueness of Net Names Hi. I'm including the RIPE and InterNIC folks on this discussion. Here are some questions for your consideration: 1) Should we remove the uniqueness requirement for net names in the Merit and InterNIC/whois databases? 2) My understanding is that RIPE's database does not require existence or uniqueness of net names. Is that correct? 3) Do net names serve any useful purpose? Should we get rid of them altogether? If we reach consensus here, I suggest that we issue an Internet draft containing a proposal. If no major concerns are raised we can make the decision final and issue an RFC. What do you think about this suggestion? What other people or organizations should be consulted in this process? Mark .... included messages omitted ------- End of Forwarded Message

6 6

Re: (Non)-Uniqueness of Net Names
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet, +43 1 436111 355 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

Daniel, I'm not including all the original recipients to save bandwidth and junkmail. I propose that you could summarize to them, if you rate something as being substantial input. |.. | > 3) Do net names serve any useful purpose? | |Yes they do! As with all names they make it easier to talk about |the object named. I agree wholeheartedly! I think there is already too much things in Internet that is talked about (and output by programs) in numbers and figures only. | > Should we get rid of them altogether? | |So this answer is no. I think we should keep them, although names are only as useful as the information being put into it. Eg. calling a network say 193.170.x "NET01" for the database... Wilfried.

1 0