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

RE: Charging by local IRs
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 05 May '96

05 May '96

Daniel said: = > "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> writes: = > . Either store the documents where they are maintained = > --> broken links, eventually. = =I do not expect much volatility in this area. Also the new setup of =the RIPE docstore will note this as it happens and it can be fixed quickly. = = > . Or store the documents alongside with the parent doc at the RIPE-NCC = > --> non-trivial to make the access "secure" and at the same time = > resonably comfortable to ensure regular updates. = =This is slightly more involved and therefore 2nd choice. I stil think that it would be much simpler to put any relevant urls into the TLD-objects in the RIPE-DB, either in a remark: attribute or in the (proposed) url: attribute. Wilfried. BTW, technical curiosity: how do you intend to keep track of dangling pointers in the "new RIPE Web"? Carol mentioned that aspect briefly in the plenary report but didn't go into details... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

TLD admin mailinglist
by Roderik Muit 30 Apr '96

30 Apr '96

It has been said a few times at the 24th RIPE meeting in Berlin that a mailinglist for Top Level Domain adminstrators has not been created yet. (Action point 23.2 was still considered open.) This is not true, however. The mailinglist was set up in the week after the 23rd RIPE meeting. The announcement of this has been sent to the DNS working group mailinglist. ======

3 2

Re: Charging by local IRs
by Niall O'Reilly 30 Apr '96

30 Apr '96

> > > Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl> writes: > > > > Hyperlinking documents in a national language into some > > international document is pretty useless. > >I do not agree. Someone local searching for the document >may find it through the international document. >Why don't you let the user decide? Aontai/m le Daniel. Ik ben met Daniel mee eens. I agree with Daniel. Niall O'Reilly

2 1

Re: Charging by local IRs
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

= > Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl> writes: = > = > Hyperlinking documents in a national language into some = > international document is pretty useless. = =I do not agree. Someone local searching for the document =may find it through the international document. =Why don't you let the user decide? While I do not want to comment on the usefulness of this approach - I'm certainly worried with the logistics. How would you keep the links "healthy" in the long run and the referred-to documents up-to-date? . Either store the documents where they are maintained --> broken links, eventually. . Or store the documents alongside with the parent doc at the RIPE-NCC --> non-trivial to make the access "secure" and at the same time resonably comfortable to ensure regular updates. = > The best = > compromise would be a short description in English of = > the procedures and policies, provided that is made very = > clear that said description does *not* formally take the = > role of the original documents. = =That would be excellent service o course. Nice to have, I agree. Otoh, I don't really understand the rationale to register a name in country when there is nobody available to cope with a local-language document... (Yes we keep getting such requests more frequently these days :-) =Daniel Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

European Data in the InterNIC Database
by Daniel Karrenberg 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

Dear Mark, as you know the RIPE community has a long standing concern about the consistency of the information available from the InterNIC whois service and the RIPE NCC whois service. The information describing European entities in the RIPE database is consistently found to be more up-to-date than data registered at the InterNIC. Both the InterNIC and the RIPE NCC have been trying to get the exchange of information to work for more than three years with little success due to lack of resources on both sides. At the same time we observe an increasing number of instances where data about European entities obtained to the InterNIC whois service is causing confusion and delays in Internet trouble shooting. Some of this is due to new and relatively unexperienced NOC staff in many places. Today it becomes extremely important that people are referred to the correct information. The RIPE local-IR working group has discussed this problem at its recent meeting in Berlin. Since making our databases consistent has not worked despite our long standing intentions, the RIPE community now asks you to remove data describing European entities from the InterNIC database as soon as possible. The InterNIC whois server should not return data and contact info about these. Most importantly this concerns address space information of 192.162.0.0 - 192.162.255.255 192.164.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 193.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255 and AS number information of 1877 - 1901 2043 2047 2107 - 2136 2585 - 2614 2773 - 2822 2830 - 2879 3154 - 3353 5377 - 5631 If possible the InterNIC whois server should return a text pointing to whois.ripe.net if these objects are queried. It should never return more specific data. Could you please inform us when this will be implemented. We hope that you understand the importance of this to the smooth operation of the Internet as a whole. This request is not intended as a critique on the InterNIC's services or staff. It is just a logical consequence of the existence of multiple regional Internet registries and the difficulties in creating a globally synchronised database. I hope that after all we will succeed in achieveing such a global database, but until then we have to take measures to prevent confusion. Thank you in advance for your help with this issue. Daniel

1 1

Re: Charging by local IRs
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:12:45 +0100 you said: > Charging by Local Internet Registries > > ripe-xxx ... >5. Recommendations >To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper, it is recommended that >all registries: > > - publish their operating procedures; > > - publish details of the services they offer and the conditions and > terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable; Why not have these procedures and national policies hyperlinked into this document, or have RIPE act as a repository for such docs such that countries exploring this area can compare "notes" with what other countries do? Hank

3 2

RE: Last Call: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP
by Barry Raveendran Greene 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

TO: IESG and AP Internet Community, The IESG has received a request from the CIDR Deployment Working Group to consider "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt> for the status of BCP. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg(a)cnri.reston.va.us or ietf(a)cnri.reston.va.us mailing lists by May 3, 1996. As the draft stands now, Singapore Telecom would be against this document being forwarded to become an Internet Best Common Practice (BCP) status (i.e. an Internet operational standard). The draft as it stands, reflects policies that promote and encourage a US Centric Internet infrastructure and enshrines the position of a few large US ISPs will then dominate the rest of the world. This endangers the development of domestic Internet infrastructures in the Asia Pacific Region and penalizes the Asia Pacific Region for doing a good job at keeping it's assigned blocks (202 and 203) within acceptable utilization AND routing levels. ALL ASIA PACFIC readers who are CCed on this message are highly encouraged to download this draft document at: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.… and forward your position by May 3! Please do so otherwise, a major global Internet policy will be forced on you (just reply to this message). If you agree or disagree with this draft moving to BCP status, please send an E-mail message to: iesg(a)cnri.reston.va.us or ietf(a)cnri.reston.va.us. All voices and comments count! I know that the team who put together the draft worked hard to get to this point. 80% of the draft is excellent, but it still needs more work. Below are some of my comments. Later, I will submit proposed changes formally to the authors. Barry Raveendran Greene Deputy Director SingNet/STIX Planning and Operation Singapore Telecom ================================================================= SINGAPORE TELECOM PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Section 2 - Allocation Framework As it stands in this draft, a new ISP in country X will have to get their IP addresses from their upstream provider. Most ISPs in AP have their upstream provider in the United States, therefore this would mean getting your addresses from the US provider. Getting it from THE US provider means that country X will be ENSLAVED to that ISP and that country to the upstream provider. If country X then wishes to move to another cheaper upstream provider they will have to RENUMBER the whole country. Since everyone agrees that the Internet is critical to business (i.e. the Internet as the foundation for the GII) , you will see how this policy has a direct impact on the ECONOMY of countries. One counter argument to this would be that this ISP in country X should have multi-homed right away. However, we know that those who say so are obviously not aware of the prices ISPs outside of the US need to pay to get there. Today, we are seeing two large US ISPs trying to promote this policy on new Asia Pacific ISPs who are unaware of the current APNIC policies (which are working). They are pushing their IP addresses on these national ISPs. A year from now, when the lease circuit contracts are terminated, that AP ISP who may wish to move to another upstream provider, will now have to renumber all the networks under that AP ISP. This it would be disastrous for that ISP to renumber, therefore, they have no choice but to be stuck to their original US upstream provider. Having now a captured customer, the US ISP can raise prices anytime. Hence, you can see how this policy only promotes US commercial interest above the interest of a global Internet infrastructure. Those in the CIDR community, should remember, that we are only talking about ONE routing entry per Asia Pacific ISP. APNIC (202-203) has NOT been a problem. We are keeping our act together. This draft penalizes ISPs in the APNIC region for doing a great job at keeping 202 - 203 from become a problem for the rest of the world. There is therefore NO REASON to change things in AP. Section 3.0 Comments are similar to the above. The only exception would be that if this draft is forward to BCP, Singapore Telecom will push APNIC to move from the current "slow start" policy to a default /18 for ALL NEW ISPs in countries in the AP region. This will be done through section 6 "Right to Appeal" on the basis of best interest of a global Internet and to insure each country has the flexibility to develop its domestic Internet infrastructure in a way that would make since for them. Please note that in Asia Pacific, these domestic Internet infrastructures are also called National Information Infrastructures (NIIs). Asia Pacific governments sees NIIs as a critical tool to continued economic growth. This draft threatens the autonomy and flexibly to choose what makes since for their country. The counter to this would be for each nation to form their own registry. But as we (in the AP region) know, this is a painful process. It takes time for national NICs to be formed, is it is feasible to form them at all. National NICs are not a solution. Section 3.3 Previous Assignment History. This section is out prevent companies like IBM, HP, and other old allocations of the class A space from getting more addresses. The result is to hamstring the Asia Pacific Internet community. Business relationships in Asia Pacific and very complex, interrelated, and competitive. Example, if you trace Asia Pacific country X's ISP corporate parentage, you will find that they all lead to one of several interrelated holding companies. Yet, all of country X's ISPs are cut throat competitive. You find similar relationships all other countries in the AP region. My colleague at JPNIC has also commented on this section from the JP perspective. This section of the draft does not consider any other business culture that the US. As a result, it will cause more problems and disruption then solve. ---------- From: IESG Secretary[SMTP:iesg-secretary@ietf.org] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 1996 1:01 AM To: IETF-Announce:; Cc: cidrd(a)iepg.org Subject: Last Call: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP The IESG has received a request from the CIDR Deployment Working Group to consider "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt> for the status of BCP. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg(a)cnri.reston.va.us or ietf(a)cnri.reston.va.us mailing lists by May 3, 1996.

1 0

Local IR Training Course Amsterdam - Registration Closed
by RIPE NCC Training 26 Apr '96

26 Apr '96

Dear Local IR's, The registration for the Local IR Training course in Amsterdam, 20th May 1996 has now been closed. As the course was oversubscribed, we were regrettably, not able to accept everyone. As soon as we have scheduled additional Training Courses, we will announce them to <local-ir(a)ripe.net>. If your registration could not be accepted this time, please register again for the next course to confirm your continued interest in attending. If you are interested in having a course in your country for a number of local IR's, we would be happy to do this. To discuss this further, please send mail to <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Naomi de Bruyn RIPE NCC Training Team

1 0

Charging by local IRs
by mnorris＠dalkey.hea.ie 26 Apr '96

26 Apr '96

Please see the following paper on "Charging by Local Internet Registries". This was enhanced by the Local IR working group and adopted by RIPE earlier this week as a brief statement of current practice in Europe, together with some guidelines for registries. I'm sending this to the Local IR and the DNS lists, and will also copy the European TLD administrators, so apologies for multiple instances of the same mail. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome. Regards. Mike Norris Charging by Local Internet Registries ripe-xxx 1. Abstract This paper deals with charging for services by Internet registries, and indicates acceptable practice for such charging. It identifies name- and address-space as finite resources with no intrinsic value; as such, direct costs cannot be ascribed to such space. It also makes recommendations for the operation of European registries in general, and additionally for those with monopoly positions. 2. Internet services In Europe as elsewhere, providers offer a range of services relating to Internet access. These include Internet connectivity, the provision of applications to end-users, design, consultancy and training services, as well as system services such as IP registration, DNS, routing and packet forwarding. With some identifiable exceptions (to which we shall return), there is generally an open market in the provision of such services. On the supply side, there is freedom to enter the market, to compete for business, and to charge for services in order to stay in business. In this context, it is acceptable practice for Internet service providers (ISPs) to charge for services such as domain registration, routing services, packet forwarding and IP services. On the demand side, the general plurality of service providers means that the customer has a choice; if not satisfied with the terms of one supplier, she can take her business to another. 3. Registries and Resources Two of the above services involve the assignment of finite resources to customers; these are domain name space and IPv4 address space. They are managed and assigned by registration agencies, respectively domain name registries and IP registries. By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for namespace or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. This principle must be made clear to the market in general and to the customer in particular. The customer must be aware of precisely what she is getting from the registry, whether it is paid for or not. Where there is a charge, the customer must not be under the illusion that this translates into a unit cost per resource assigned, nor that the transaction is an indefinite transfer of ownership of the merchandise. Finally, the customer must accept the terms under which name or address space is assigned. In the case of IP address space, these include the contractual term that the assignment is only valid for so long as the criteria of the assignment are valid [ref 1]. As soon as the original criteria no longer apply, the address space must be returned without penalty or premium to the assigning registry. 4. Special Case Registries As indicated above, there are certain exceptions to the market principle in the Internet registration services. These occur where, by virtue of their location in the hierarchy of Internet registration, certain registries find themselves in a monopoly position. In the case of namespace, this applies to top-level domain (TLD) registries (in Europe, these are all country registries), as well as certain administratively unique second-level domain registries (such as .co.uk, .ac.at etc). When it comes to IP address allocation, regional registries constitute monopolies within the communities they serve. In Europe, one instance is the RIPE NCC, registry for the European region [ref 2]. Other possible examples are the last resort (non-provider) IP registries, although nowadays the customer has an alternative to their services. It is important that there be transparency in the procedures and accounts of such "special case" registries. They must not generate excessive profits by virtue of their monopoly position. 5. Recommendations To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper, it is recommended that all registries: - publish their operating procedures; - publish details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable; - explicitly publish the fact that they do not sell name or address space as such. As for "special case" registries as defined above, it is recommended that where such a registry charges for service, it should, in addition to complying with the recommendations listed above: - relate charges to costs of operation and apply all revenues to such costs; - regularly publish a budget of its anticipated operating costs and revenue; - publish guidelines and apply these uniformly; - ensure equality of access to registration services; - aim to achieve consensus within the community it serves as to the disposal of any surplus revenues; - regularly publish accounts of income and expenditure; - refrain from using their unique position as leverage in any other business venture. Daniel Karrenberg and Mike Norris 22nd April 1996 References 1. "European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures" by Orange, C., Kuehne, M., Karrenberg, D. (ripe-104, 1996) 2. "RIPE NCC - Delegated Internet Registry" (ripe-112, 1994)

1 0

ripe-128++
by Carol Orange 26 Apr '96

26 Apr '96

Dear Local IR's, Last week, we posted a new set of forms to be used when submitting IP address space assignment requests to the RIPE NCC for review, along with a request for comments. The forms are used to collect information as required by the policies stated in the first four sections of the ripe-104++ document. These policies were approved by the local IR working group when it met at the RIPE 23 meeting in January, 1996. We have received some useful input on the form design. In addition, we have received a number of requests that the forms be finalized and published as soon as possible. To this end, we encourage you to submit any comments or requests regarding the forms before the: Deadline for comments: May 1, 1996 Comments received after this date cannot be included in the revision. Please review the ripe-128++ document, and send your comments to this list <local-ir(a)ripe.net> for discussion. If your input is of an editorial nature, you can just send it to me <orange(a)ripe.net>. Thanks to those who have already provided useful input. Greetings, -- Carol Orange

1 0