June 1994 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Address space for individuals
by Per Gregers Bilse 25 Aug '94

25 Aug '94

Ignoring for a minute that I don't work with local-ir stuff in any way or capacity, I find it odd the lengths ``we'' (Internet NICs, registries, providers) go to, to help and support people and organisations who don't want to play our game, ie connect to the global Internet, anyway. This is even more so, given the address space depletion (although opinions wrt this problem varies). Individuals or micro companies who want to connect a couple of PCs on a LAN can renumber the day they connect. Larger companies who clearly state that they have no intention of connecting, and want numbers for closed networks, don't need unique numbers (this has been discussed elsewhere recently). Medium size companies who intend to connect (later) -- no problem, of course they can get official numbers. But is it completely outrageous to consider unique/official IP numbers to be the property of the global, connected Internet? And categorically rule that they will only be issued to members of this crowd, ie those that actually (intend to) connect? "Intend to connect" ... A sledgehammer approach (nothing new in this, but I think it bears repeating): Organisations get allocations as usual, with the usual justifications for size etc. If somebody don't use (ie connect and route) at least part of their allocation within, say, 12 months, they have forfeited their chance. Their numbers may be re-assigned to somebody else, who now has first call. If the original requestor wants to connect at a later stage, they'll have to renumber. Considering the "interesting" future ahead of us, when IP numbers become really scarce, I don't see any reason to dole them out right, left and center to people who don't intend to use them. Unless we want to start building the future market of IP numbers; I wonder what a /16 will sell for around the turn of the century. -- bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> +31 20 592 5109 (dir: 5110); fax +31 20 592 5163 ``We used to ! but now we @'' (jensen)

2 2

ripe-107 expiring
by Stephan.Biesbroeck＠belnet.be 29 Jun '94

29 Jun '94

ripe-107 is expiring tomorrow. Is there an update available (soon), or do we ignore/change the expire date ?? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Biesbroeck Tel: +32(0)2-2383470 stephan(a)belnet.be Fax: +32(0)2-2315131 Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET

3 2

Re: Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations
by Willi Huber 23 Jun '94

23 Jun '94

> > Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different > autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet > registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that > the organisation of the administrative contact changes. > No problem with me. But in my opignion this policy hasn't been clearly defined until now. One problem I see, is that smaller organizations with a class B - there are many around - will not change to class C's unless they see a benefit for some other organization they are related to. If the reassignment of address space is according to the same rules as assignment of new address space, then why not ask for new one? I doubt whether Daniels maxim 'be a good citizen - give back under used address space' works with real humans. Willi Huber

1 0

Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations
by Daniel Karrenberg 23 Jun '94

23 Jun '94

Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that the organisation of the administrative contact changes. In general there is no problem with such reassignments as long as the address space will be used for the purpose(s) for which it was already assigned. Also there is no problem if a similar amount of address space would have been assigned for the new purpose. As with original assignments local registries will be in charge of processing this. Once the threshold for a second opinion (13 bits == 32Cs) has been reached however it is strongly advised to consult the RIPE NCC. For reassignment of address space of 16 bits or more (class B) consulting the RIPE NCC is mandatory. The reason for this is to prevent a black market in IP addresses which circumvents the review procedures which provide fair address space allocation and which we all work very hard to provide. In my opinion this is no new policy but just a logical consequence of the agreed policies we use. Comments to the list welcome. Questions to me please. Daniel Karrenberg

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Jun '94

19 Jun '94

On Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:49 BST you said: > >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: > >Not quite -- I explained the UK situation on this list a few weeks ago. >In your characterisation, (a) -- government funded -- is probably the best >approximation. However, it's the bit of 'government' that funds university >wide-area networking, so maybe you count that as 'university'? I don't >know, as your wording's ambiguous -- if 'university' means that a >single university funds it then that's *not* the situation, but if >'university' means that the funding comes from the academic networking >activities then that would be the situation. My definition of government funding is when a specific government ministry or agency allocates money to either a university or a consortium to "do networking" and part of the budget has been specificially earmarked for handling registrations. The university of consortium might be doing the work, but the one paying the bill is the government. This is not the same as the government giving a university or universities a few million ECUs to do E3/ATM networking. > >Bob Day Hank

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Erik-Jan Bos 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

Hank, >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) __ Erik-Jan.

3 2

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

On Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:58:45 +0200 (MET DST) you said: >> >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: >> >> DE c >> IL b >> CZ c >> DK d - Eunet Denmark >> ES a >> BE a >> >> >> >a) government funded registry >> >b) university funded registry >> >c) country Internet consortium funded registry >> >d) other >> >> Based on such a small sample I don't think we can conclude anything. >> Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > >Hank, we didn't respond to your survey because I think your rather >simple categories have a tendency to imply wrong and misleading things, >and I simply do not have the time to start a big discussion on why the >categories are wrong. But you should have. > >But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities >of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal >office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries >are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. >governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or >direct government funding. I guess ES and BE should answer. > >Simon Hank

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

> But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities > of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal > office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries > are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. > governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or > direct government funding. Yep -- as I just said in my previous message on the UK situation (which I'd dispatched just as Simon's very succinct summary arrived!). Bob

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are > gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries > that answered: Not quite -- I explained the UK situation on this list a few weeks ago. In your characterisation, (a) -- government funded -- is probably the best approximation. However, it's the bit of 'government' that funds university wide-area networking, so maybe you count that as 'university'? I don't know, as your wording's ambiguous -- if 'university' means that a single university funds it then that's *not* the situation, but if 'university' means that the funding comes from the academic networking activities then that would be the situation. Bob Day

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Erik-Jan Bos 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

Simon, > > >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > > > > NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) > > Stiching SURFnet or SURFnet BV? The choices are: - Stichting SURF - SURFnet bv The correct answer is: - SURFnet bv __ Erik-Jan.

1 0