February 1996 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Paul Ferguson 03 Feb '96

03 Feb '96

At 02:16 PM 2/2/96 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: >> >> > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. >> > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG) >> > >> > 60% - invalid or missing contact information >> >> This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you >> and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your >> addresses get recycled. > >How about a policy which says that if you fail to pay an annual amount >by a due date then a process is commenced with an outcome such that >your registration details expire and the associated number space is no >longer registered to you. > >Geoff > Would this process, perhaps, be associated with a route announcement charging scheme? - paul

2 1

a question
by Jarmo.Oksanen＠tele.fi 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

Hello, During the last RIPE-23 there were discussions about renumbering the 192 C- classes assigned in Europe. Is the renumbering just 'under' discussion or is it really going on? We have several 192 blocks, like 192.58.41 - 192.58.89 192.83.0 - 192.83.100 192.89.0 - 192.89.255 192.130.0 - 192.130.255 192.194.0 - 192.194.255 I think the blocks 192.58 and 192.83 should renumber, but the rest of the blocks are /16 routes. Is there really needs to renumber these blocks? Could somebody 'update' me about this renumbering? Thank you! Japi -- Jarmo Oksanen Telecom Finland Ltd Telephone: +358 2040 72419 Mobile phone: +358 400 737 684 Fax: +358 2040 72669

1 0

Action point 22.13: Inic & handles
by Geert Jan de Groot 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

I forgot to bring up the following action point during the meeting: * 22.13 Geert-Jan de Groot To try to follow up with the InterNIC about accepting person objects with RIPE-Handles. I received the following message from the Internic, which indicates that this problem is solved. Many thanks to Mark and the rest of the Inic bunch for fixing it. My apologies for not formally bringing it up during the meeting; too many things going on at once I guess. On the other requests (such as in-addr glue record authentication) I can report that they're working on it, and we are discussing some details which have to be resolved. Stay tuned. Geert Jan ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:55:11 -0500 From: Mark Kosters <markk(a)internic.net> To: geertjan.degroot(a)ripe.net Subject: ripe handles Geert Jan We now will accept ripe handles for domains as well. We just finished testing and have deployed the new software. [....]

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Hank Nussbacher 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:16:18 +1100 (EST) you said: >> >> > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. >> > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG) >> > >> > 60% - invalid or missing contact information >> >> This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you >> and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your >> addresses get recycled. > >How about a policy which says that if you fail to pay an annual amount >by a due date then a process is commenced with an outcome such that >your registration details expire and the associated number space is no >longer registered to you. and how about a waive of the fee if you return smaller aggregates for a larger one (I started doing something similiar in Israel 3 months ago). > >Geoff > Hank

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Nick Vermeulen 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

Hi, imho, most multi-homed sites can do with a partial routing table; organisations who want or need to have full routing tables should put extra RAM in their backbonerouters to meet demand. When 64 MByte isn't enough anymore...buy a cisco 7500 series which can hold 128 MByte RAM. you can minimize the number of your full-routingtable routers with ebgp multihop features (for multi-homed customers) in the mean time...monitoring routing tables and notifying net-admins that advertise less efficient aggregates will help. i don't think renumbering the networks of ISP customers is a real-world solution (they will really hate you for that). ip-ip tunnels have lot's of problems and overhead too. in short: optimize aggregation within current assignments, hope that it helpes, and lobby for budgets if it doesn't. that sounds real-world to me... cheers, Nick Vermeulen Wirehub! Internet eMail : nick(a)wirehub.net Oudedijk 196 tel : +31 (10) 4110403 3061 AS Rotterdam fax : +31 (10) 4113556

3 2

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Scott Huddle 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

> > It only gets really touchy if few of the backbones touch down in the area. > > > >Unfortunately, this is exactly the case in which geographic addressing doesn't > >work so well any more, and we have no way to mandate that backbones touch down. > > Name a backbone which doesn't come into the San Francisco Bay Area. Um, all of the rest of the world's providers. > This is the area I want to try the idea out in. In terms of physical > touchdowns, they are all in place. The only barrier is getting most > of the backbones to willingly participate in the experiment. And whats your business case that'll do this? > A very significant chunk of new domains and new ISPs are here, > in the 415/408/510 area code regions (and 707, which is next door > and could be included if we wanted...). So build it. -scott

3 3

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by sob＠academ.com 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

Well, John... I have received two of these emails. So, I disagree with you. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

From: George Herbert <gherbert(a)crl.com> It only gets really touchy if few of the backbones touch down in the area. Unfortunately, this is exactly the case in which geographic addressing doesn't work so well any more, and we have no way to mandate that backbones touch down. Noel

2 1

New mailing list: tld-admin@ripe.net
by Geert Jan de Groot 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

As requested at the last RIPE meeting, I have set up a new mailing list for TLD administrators: tld-admin(a)ripe.net. This is a closed mailing list; per request of the WG, only people who are maintaining a TLD are allowed to subscribe. As we need to verify requestor's affiliation, please send subscription requests to tld-admin-request(a)ripe.net including the name of the TLD you are administering. Please keep in mind that we need to verify things by hand and therefore some time may lapse processing requests. The maillist is archived, but again only privately so if you need a copy of the archive, please ask tld-admin-request(a)ripe.net. I'd like the TLD-admins to consider if they feel it is a good idea that the parties listed in RFC1591 (IANA, APNIC, InterNIC and RIPE NCC) are also allowed to subscribe or if the list should be restricted to TLD admins only. Let's party! Geert Jan

1 0