October 1998 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Massive changed in the Ripe Database..
by Svetlana Tkachenko 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] > > I think PGP-signed request (Internic for example) - good way to stop > unauthorized access to database... Why don't make "auth" attribute mandatory everywhere? Like in mntner object.

1 0

Re: Massive changed in the Ripe Database..
by IRIS-NIC 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] On Oct 28, 4:32pm, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Subject: Re: Massive changed in the Ripe Database.. > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:31:50 +0100 (CET) > Winfried Haug <haug(a)seicom.net> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > today we noticed, that a *huge* number of Ripe Handles has been > > deleted or modified by > > > > - From: Trevor McBryan <tmcb(a)rain.fr> > > - Subject: longack > > - Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:33:35 +0000 > > - Msg-Id: <3635CBAF.2C707C44(a)rain.fr> > > > > We saw one change like this also. > We have seen other ten changes in our person objects too. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | RedIRIS NIC | | Centro de Comunicaciones CSIC RedIRIS | | Serrano 142 Tel: + 34 915855150 | | 28006 Madrid Fax: + 34 915855146 | | SPAIN Email: iris-nic(a)rediris.es | +---------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

RE: Massive changed in the Ripe Database..
by Basil V. Dolmatov 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] It is robot message... ;) All variants contain same typo "objectso"... ;) I think, that autoresponder is set on this address... -------------------------------------- Basil (Vasily) Dolmatov dol(a)east.ru +7-095-956-4951 East Connection ISP, Moscow, Russia. (http://www.east.ru) Nick handles ;) : BVD12, DOL1-RIPE, VVD2-RIPN On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Pierre Reynes wrote: > Oliver, > > This is the answer we got from Trevor: > > ----BEGIN PASTE---- > Sorry for the error, > > All of the RIPE database objects associated with the addresses > managed by Global One are being transferred to their responsability. > > Unfortunately, I forgot part of a filter to overlook most of the > person objectso for the migration. > > Your object has NOT been deleted if there was a maintainer; otherwise, > the other objects are being recreated. > > The RIPE hostmaster/ncc is aware of the probleme and is working with > us for the corrections. > > Cordialement, > > Trevor McBryan > > ----END PASTE--- > > Best, > Pierre REYNES > -------------------------------------------------------------- > DNS TELECOM - Votre courtier en telecommunications > Imm. La Fayette 2, place des vosges 92051 Paris la Difense 5 > Tel: +33 (0)1 41 16 84 56 Fax: +33 (0)1 49 05 46 89 > Mobile: +33 (0)6 03 91 89 14 > Mailto:preynes@dnstelecom.fr > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Les Solutions Internet Intelligentes : > http://www.dnstelecom.fr/Solutions/Internet/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver J. Albrecht [mailto:olli@spike.allcon.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 10:03 AM > To: haug(a)seicom.de; local-ir(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: Massive changed in the Ripe Database.. > > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Winfried Haug wrote: > > > today we noticed, that a *huge* number of Ripe Handles has been > > deleted or modified by > > > > - From: Trevor McBryan <tmcb(a)rain.fr> > > - Subject: longack > > - Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:33:35 +0000 > > - Msg-Id: <3635CBAF.2C707C44(a)rain.fr> > > I don't know what this person is up to, but he also tried to > delete one of the handles maintained by us (SS1586-RIPE). > Shortly after it happened (yesterday around 18:00 GMT) , I > sent email asking for the reason, but received no reply yet. > Maybe someone in France would like to call this gentleman > on the phone: > > person: Trevor McBryan > address: CSI Transpac > address: 12 bis rue Campagne Premiere > address: 75014 Paris > phone: +33 1 43 35 82 05 > fax-no: +33 1 43 35 82 47 > e-mail: tmcb(a)rain.fr > nic-hdl: TMCB > mnt-by: RAIN-TRANSPAC > changed: mcbryan(a)innet.lu 961205 > source: RIPE > > -- > Oliver J. Albrecht AllCon GmbH http://www.allcon.net/ > Network Administration Westerallee 139 Tel: +49 461 90393-0 > olli(a)spike.allcon.net D-24941 Flensburg Fax: +49 461 90393-33 >

1 0

Re: Massive changed in the Ripe Database..
by Marc Roger 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] Oliver, I have received the following answer this morning: > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:22:13 +0100 (MET) > From: Trevor McBryan <tmcb(a)mason.rain.fr> > Message-Id: <199810281022.LAA15215(a)mason.rain.fr> > To: Marc.Roger(a)belnet.be > Subject: Re: Requested RIPE database object changes (fwd) > > Sorry for the error, > > All of the RIPE database objects associated with the addresses > managed by Global One are being transferred to their responsability. > > Unfortunately, I forgot part of a filter to overlook most of the > person objectso for the migration. > > Your object has NOT been deleted if there was a maintainer; otherwise, > the other objects are being recreated. > > The RIPE hostmaster/ncc is aware of the probleme and is working with > us for the corrections. > > Cordialement, > > Trevor McBryan I think it clarifies things a bit. On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Oliver J. Albrecht wrote: > I don't know what this person is up to, but he also tried to > delete one of the handles maintained by us (SS1586-RIPE). > Shortly after it happened (yesterday around 18:00 GMT) , I > sent email asking for the reason, but received no reply yet. > Maybe someone in France would like to call this gentleman > on the phone: -- Marc.Roger(a)belnet.be, BELNET

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-185
by RIPE NCC Document Annoucement Service 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-185 Title: European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures Author: RIPE Local Internet Registry Working Group Date: 26 October 1998 Obsoletes: ripe-159 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document is an update to ripe-159, the European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures document. It includes policy changes agreed upon by the LIR working group and the local-ir mailing list. The main change is that an allocation only needs to be 80% used up before requesting a new one (used to be 90%). There are also minor changes to make the text in the document clearer, and to include better examples. These changes were circulated to the local-ir list several weeks ago. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-185.html Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to <mail-server(a)ripe.net> with "send HELP" in the body text.

1 0

web interface for ripe-141 form
by Naeem malik 26 Oct '98

26 Oct '98

Dear Local IRs, During the LIR WG meeting at RIPE 31 in Edinburgh we discussed various possibilities to implement a web interface for the IP request form. We would like to further discuss this on the mailing list. Note that we distinguish here between 'syntax checks' which merely make sure the submitted form is sensible, and 'full checks' which check the data it contains. As a first step we propose to implement a public web page based at the RIPE NCC that LIRs can use to check the syntax of their IP request forms. The output will be a detailed error report or a request form suitable for pasting into an email. This would enable LIRs to check the syntax of a request before sending it to RIPE NCC, or a LIR customer to check the syntax of a form before sending it to the LIR. <copied from original text> I for one think it is a good idea. If anybody is interested, take a look at APNIC's equivalent web form at http://www.apnic.net/reg.html which would serve as a useful start and could be improved on. This could also be extended to submitting the network object, as it is a bit laborious at the moment. Another example if you'd like a look is available from the Cable & Wireless (used to be MCI) web pages (SWIP updates) http://infopage.cw.net/Address/swip.html I think this would be a useful development and would suggest that you endeavour to proceed with it. For those who LIR's who have not got a web form for their customers, I suggest taking a look at http://services.concert.net/address-space/request.html. Note this page has been designed for all the registries, RIPE/APNIC/ARIN and is used by our customers many times during the day. Com on guys, lets move into the 20th century. Regards, Naeem Malik

1 0

RE: web interface for ripe-141 form
by De Groote, Patrick 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

A syntax-checking web page would be valuable indeed. The registration of networks is not my primary job-description, but comes with the job. I therefore spend a lot of time getting the syntax right, due to the fact that it does not happen every day (or every week) that I need to fill out a ripe-141. Having the customer check out the syntax before he submits would be of equal, if not larger value. rgds Patrick Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer >-----Original Message----- >From: Paula Caslav [SMTP:Paula.Caslav@ripe.net] >Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:50 PM >To: local-ir(a)ripe.net >Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: web interface for ripe-141 form > > >Dear Local IRs, > >During the LIR WG meeting at RIPE 31 in Edinburgh we discussed various >possibilities to implement a web interface for the IP request form. >We would like to further discuss this on the mailing list. > >Note that we distinguish here between 'syntax checks' which merely >make sure the submitted form is sensible, and 'full checks' which >check the data it contains. > >As a first step we propose to implement a public web page based at the >RIPE NCC that LIRs can use to check the syntax of their IP request >forms. The output will be a detailed error report or a request form >suitable for pasting into an email. > >This would enable LIRs to check the syntax of a request before sending >it to RIPE NCC, or a LIR customer to check the syntax of a form before >sending it to the LIR. > >A next step would a web page based at the LIR's server that LIRs can >use to check the syntax of their IP request forms. The output will be >a detailed error report or an IP request form suitable for pasting >into an email. The source code will be available to allow the LIR to >make this available to their customers, with hooks so additional >comments and local-language labels can be easily added or so the >result can be automatically sent by the program in an email. At this >phase, support would be limited initially. > >The last step would be a web page based at the RIPE NCC that will >allow LIRs *only* ( controlled by password) to submit an IP request >form. > >This would mean: > >- Requests within the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked but > will *not* create a ticket and will *not* be forwarded to a RIPE NCC > hostmaster for further processing. > >- Requests outside the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked. > A new ticket will be created and all submissions of the form will be > added to the ticket. This ticket will be forwarded to a RIPE NCC > hostmaster on passing all the checks, or exceeding the number of > checks limit. > > >If you have any suggestions or comments, please let us know. > > >Kind Regards, > >Maldwyn Morris > >P.S. I am sending this mail to both the local-ir list and the lir-wg >list, to make sure that everybody is aware of this discussion. However >the discussion itself should take place on the lir-wg mailing list. If >you are not subscribed to that list but wish to follow this discussion, >please send a mail to majordomo(a)ripe.net with HELP in the body. You can >also follow the discussion in the archives on our web site.- Paula >Caslav >

2 1

RE: web interface for ripe-141 form
by Laurent BERNARD 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

'couldn't say it more accurately. Thanks. Best regards. ---------------------------------------------------- A syntax-checking web page would be valuable indeed. The registration of networks is not my primary job-description, but comes with the job. I therefore spend a lot of time getting the syntax right, due to the fact that it does not happen every day (or every week) that I need to fill out a ripe-141. Having the customer check out the syntax before he submits would be of equal, if not larger value. rgds Patrick Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer >-----Original Message----- >From: Paula Caslav [SMTP:Paula.Caslav@ripe.net] >Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:50 PM >To: local-ir(a)ripe.net >Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: web interface for ripe-141 form > > >Dear Local IRs, > >During the LIR WG meeting at RIPE 31 in Edinburgh we discussed various >possibilities to implement a web interface for the IP request form. >We would like to further discuss this on the mailing list. > >Note that we distinguish here between 'syntax checks' which merely >make sure the submitted form is sensible, and 'full checks' which >check the data it contains. > >As a first step we propose to implement a public web page based at the >RIPE NCC that LIRs can use to check the syntax of their IP request >forms. The output will be a detailed error report or a request form >suitable for pasting into an email. > >This would enable LIRs to check the syntax of a request before sending >it to RIPE NCC, or a LIR customer to check the syntax of a form before >sending it to the LIR. > >A next step would a web page based at the LIR's server that LIRs can >use to check the syntax of their IP request forms. The output will be >a detailed error report or an IP request form suitable for pasting >into an email. The source code will be available to allow the LIR to >make this available to their customers, with hooks so additional >comments and local-language labels can be easily added or so the >result can be automatically sent by the program in an email. At this >phase, support would be limited initially. > >The last step would be a web page based at the RIPE NCC that will >allow LIRs *only* ( controlled by password) to submit an IP request >form. > >This would mean: > >- Requests within the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked but > will *not* create a ticket and will *not* be forwarded to a RIPE NCC > hostmaster for further processing. > >- Requests outside the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked. > A new ticket will be created and all submissions of the form will be > added to the ticket. This ticket will be forwarded to a RIPE NCC > hostmaster on passing all the checks, or exceeding the number of > checks limit. > > >If you have any suggestions or comments, please let us know. > > >Kind Regards, > >Maldwyn Morris > >P.S. I am sending this mail to both the local-ir list and the lir-wg >list, to make sure that everybody is aware of this discussion. However >the discussion itself should take place on the lir-wg mailing list. If >you are not subscribed to that list but wish to follow this discussion, >please send a mail to majordomo(a)ripe.net with HELP in the body. You can >also follow the discussion in the archives on our web site.- Paula >Caslav > Laurent BERNARD "Not knowing it couldn't be done, he went ahead and did it"

1 0

web interface for ripe-141 form
by Paula Caslav 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

Dear Local IRs, During the LIR WG meeting at RIPE 31 in Edinburgh we discussed various possibilities to implement a web interface for the IP request form. We would like to further discuss this on the mailing list. Note that we distinguish here between 'syntax checks' which merely make sure the submitted form is sensible, and 'full checks' which check the data it contains. As a first step we propose to implement a public web page based at the RIPE NCC that LIRs can use to check the syntax of their IP request forms. The output will be a detailed error report or a request form suitable for pasting into an email. This would enable LIRs to check the syntax of a request before sending it to RIPE NCC, or a LIR customer to check the syntax of a form before sending it to the LIR. A next step would a web page based at the LIR's server that LIRs can use to check the syntax of their IP request forms. The output will be a detailed error report or an IP request form suitable for pasting into an email. The source code will be available to allow the LIR to make this available to their customers, with hooks so additional comments and local-language labels can be easily added or so the result can be automatically sent by the program in an email. At this phase, support would be limited initially. The last step would be a web page based at the RIPE NCC that will allow LIRs *only* ( controlled by password) to submit an IP request form. This would mean: - Requests within the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked but will *not* create a ticket and will *not* be forwarded to a RIPE NCC hostmaster for further processing. - Requests outside the LIR's assignment window will be fully checked. A new ticket will be created and all submissions of the form will be added to the ticket. This ticket will be forwarded to a RIPE NCC hostmaster on passing all the checks, or exceeding the number of checks limit. If you have any suggestions or comments, please let us know. Kind Regards, Maldwyn Morris P.S. I am sending this mail to both the local-ir list and the lir-wg list, to make sure that everybody is aware of this discussion. However the discussion itself should take place on the lir-wg mailing list. If you are not subscribed to that list but wish to follow this discussion, please send a mail to majordomo(a)ripe.net with HELP in the body. You can also follow the discussion in the archives on our web site.- Paula Caslav

4 3

Initial Allocation Policy
by Daniel Karrenberg 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Background ---------- The advisory council of ARIN asked ARIN to consider changing the current allcation policy. The initial allocation to a new LIR/ISP should be reduced from a /19 to a /20. The reason being that this would make it easier for new ARIN customers to receive an allocation directly from ARIN rather than from their up-stream provider. According to ARIN's local allocation policy they would then need to justify the utilisation of only a /21 instead of a /20 previously allocated to them by their upstream provider. Another motivation is to improve conservation of address space by reducing the amount of unused addresses in initial allocations. The new policy would not increase the load on the global routing, because the same amount of allocations would still be given out, just one longer prefix. Before deciding on this proposal ARIN has asked the other regional registries (APNIC and RIPE NCC) to also consider this change. Considerations -------------- Based on the RIPE NCC allocation data starting in 1992 we investigated how much impact the proposed change would have on the conservation of address space. We determined how many LIRs in our service region had not used more than a /20 from their initial /19 allocation within one year. The results are as follows: Of 1410 LIRs checked 304 (22%) had assigned not more than a /20 during the first 12 months of operations. This means that 78% of the LIRs had used more than a /20 within one year. The total amount of allocated but, after one year, not yet assigned address space was equivalent to 19 /16s. Some of the LIRs which did not have assigned more than a /20 after one year have since become inactive and the address space concerned will not be assigned in the foreseeable future. However 272 of the 304 are still operational and it is likely that most of them will assign more address space in the future. Further investigations showed that about 50% of those LIRs who haven't used more than a /20 appear to be multihomed. Conclusions ----------- These results have been presented to the LIR WG at the 31. RIPE Meeting in Edinburgh. The LIR WG is the body defining local address space policy for the RIPE NCC. The LIR WG didn't feel that this is a reason to change the current allocation policy. The benefits for conservation are not significant. However, the consequences for aggregation are likely to be noticeable if 80% of LIRs require a second allocation within a year. Furthermore the LIR WG expressed concerns about the routability of longer pefixes in the light of current prefix-length dependent filtering and flap dampening policies. Under the current circumstances the LIR WG did not see a valid reason to change the current allocation policy. We ask the ARIN membership to take this into consideration and consider other ways of achieving the aims of the proposed change.

1 0