December 2000 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 24 Jun '01

24 Jun '01

Hi Joao! >If the reference is by name then when I query the DB I will get the list of >persons with that name, right? Right. >Whether the object belongs to the person or not is not going to save this >person from being contacted. From the point of view of the database and the >user querying it, the object belongs to that person. Right >The link is via a name. > >Now we substitute the reference by name with a reference by nic handle >pointing to the same person. >What is the difference? > >ALMOST NONE except that: True, for the case where there is a strict one-to-one mapping, e.g the recursion using the name returns *one* object. What do you suggets to do with the case where the recursion, based on the names, returns a *set* of objects? I can see 2 approaches (at least): - do not perform the handle substitution for that referring object and put it on the list of those requiring human intervention - expand the xxxx-c: list (which? the tech-c:?) to refer to *all* objects, but by ref'ing their handles While human beings are quite clever in selecting the "proper" instance of a person: object (by looking at country, address, email,...) a script might be quite clueless with that respect :-) Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 3

lir-wg open actions
by Hans Petter Holen 07 Jan '01

07 Jan '01

35.1 Chair Publish policy document 35 pres 35.2 Chair publish election procedure 35 pres 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure RIPE38 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm RIPE38 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators Started 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes Ntr ? 38.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency 38.2 NCC Incorporate IESG/IAB proposal into IPv6 policy 38.2 M17 Work with the RIPE NCC to implement suggestions 38.3 WG Nominate candidates for AC election 38.4 Rob Perform election of AC candidate at RIPE 38 Plenary

1 1

IPv6 joint policy meeting minutes
by David Kessens 23 Dec '00

23 Dec '00

Hi, Please see below for the minutes of the joint session of the ipv6 wg and lir wg regarding ipv6 allocation policies at RIPE37. The minutes will be declared final by January 5 if I don't receive any comments other than typographical errors and other minor corrections. I would like to thank Vesna for taking the minutes. Thanks, David K. --- IPv6 joint policy meeting RIPE ipv6-wg & lir-wg Wednesday, 13 September 2000 RIPE 37 Chair: David Kessens Agenda i Statement of current policy draft ii IAB/IESG recommendations iii Panel discussion iv AOB =i= Statement of current policy draft -- Joao Damas, RIPE NCC One year ago 3 Regional Internet Registries produced document that outlines allocation of IPv6 address space. * size of end user assignments * multihoming considerations * what is the meaning of 80% usage in ipv6? We need the clear picture of these issues to move forward. [chair: Bob Hinden tries to present the opinion of the IAB/IESG as closely as possible, but he is not the official spokesman of those bodies] = ii = IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocation - Bob Hinden URL: http://www/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-37/presentations/ripe-ipv6-hinden/ We do not have real issue on service provider allocations size. Our recommendation is: /48 fixed boundary for all subscribers. This is consistent with responsible stewardship of the IPv6 Address space. Reasoning: - allocation policies influence the deployment; policies should make deployment easy, not slow - renumbering is (still) not painless or automatic Exceptions: - very large subscribers should get multiple /48:s, or /47 - transient nodes (roaming, dial-up) (/64) - explicitly no interest in subnetting Justifications for fixed boundary: - easy to change ISP:s (does not require restructuring of subnets) - straightforward renumbering - compatible with current multihoming proposals - allows easy growth of subscribers - reduces burden of ISP:s and RIR:s to judge customers' needs - no need for details of customers' networks - no need to judge rates of consumption - no scarcity of subscriber's space: no need for NAT - allows single reverse DNS zone (for all prefixes) Conservation: - does this waste IPv6 address space? No. - this distribution had better H ratio (RFC1715) then many others today - still, only one of the Format Prefixes (001) is going to be used; it leaves 85% of total IPv6 space for future usage and possible stricter policy Multihoming: IETF is still looking for input on this issue. = iii= Panel discussion: 1. Stephen Burley (UUNET) 2. Steve Deering (ipng) 3. Joao Damas (RIPE NCC) 4. Bob Hinden (ipng) 5. Randy Bush (ngtrans) 6. Juergen Rauschenbach (ipv6 forum) Q: What is criteria for ISP allocation? How much IPv6 address space does an ISP get? A: (Randy) This proposal is not changing other parts of policy. All will still get a /35. Normal slow start. Q: (Dave Pratt) Could you clarify what is meant by the 80% rule? A: (Bob) 80% of number of customers (ISP needs to allocate 80%, not the subscribers) Q: (Dave) I guess what I really mean is to do with ISP/LIR addressing hierarchy. It's difficult to build in hierarchy if aiming for 80% utilisation before more addresses will become available. Steve: H-ratio may be more appropriate rather than a percentage. A: I would suggest 20%. For example with 20% you can reserve addresses for 8 regions, and not worry if 6 of the 8 sites have small take up rates. A: (Steve) "you can start without hierarchy, and then add it later when the need arises". A: We could add hierarchy later, but maybe not really ***(same problems later as at start)***. We should be designing our networks correctly from the beginning. A: Discussion of possibility of H ratio's also being applied also to the LIR/ISP address range. Randy points out that with allocating /48s in a /35, the H ratio might be different, but the principle still holds, and there is a believe that there are enough addresses in IPv6 (also mentions in passing that the same believe existed in the early days of IPv4) Q: (Wilfred Woeber) Thank you for the clear document and clarification. Remaining issue: number of bits available for infrastructure. There should be a recommendation to start with the least significant bits. A: (Steve) We need an analysis regarding building an efficient hierarchy in the top 8 bits. If the community agrees on the /48 boundary, we may have to review the size of the initial allocation (/35 subTLA size). Joao explains why the /35 has been chosen. One gets 8192 NLA ranges, which can each by itself be structured and managed. This means it is actually more than if one gets a /19 in IPv4. Randy wonders why WW thinks one has a different problem in v than today in v4. The ISP he works for aggregates per pop, very strict and successful about it, but announce a /19 or shorter per pop. /35 feels as comfortable. Tries to understand if people don't feel comfortable with that and why. A: 13 bits (/35) is fine, it allows for aggregation per pop, the problem is the 80% usage rate. Randy: isn't the problem the percent, not matter how much it is? A: Problem is if the pops grow at different speed. A: Gert Doering, space net, Germany: We started with /19. by now, we have /16 and few /19:s, and they are not aggregated. We have resellers, and they have theirs. It fragments awfully. i am in favour of /56; or, i do not mind /48 if we can get bigger prefix (more bits) in the front. I do not need more space, but more possibility to build the hierarchy and aggregate. Joao: You have /29 contiguous block reserved to grow into. Gert: I don't see the need for slow start. There are a so many /29s the routing tables would explode before the /29s were exhausted. Bob suggests that might be solvable by rethinking the 80% usage rate (so that ISPs are not penalised for taking a long-term view from the start). Randy: He is in Frankfurt and Bon, and peers with Jurgen at both places, and announces same /35 at both places and Jurgen does not know to which one to send traffic. Chair: Want to refocus back on the recommendations of the draft. People seem to be OK with the /48. Let's move on. Need to come up with something to put in the multihoming section. For now, IPv4 method of multihoming should be used, as a short term recommendation. There is also the option to use multiple prefixes. The philosophy should be that addresses are cheap, so if someone wants to experiment with the multi address multihoming, let them and give them the addresses. Q: (Dave Pratt) Present PI space is authorised by RIPE and does NOT come from provider assigned space. I think this is a good rule *** (until better multihoming techniques are developed)*** that should be continued for IPv6. Alain Durand: Wants to emphasise that it's early in deployment and we need lots of feedback regarding whether multihoming techniques etc work. Be generous with /48s. Randy: From the proposal "if they need more address space, they get multiple /48:s". I would suggest /47. Steve: Looking to create a team to investigate how to measure usage. Maybe find a H ratio measure to apply instead of the 80% rule. Joao: the conservation is not the only issue here. WW: We want to keep the routing table small. (...) Randy: Small number of providers having TLA does not look good from the market point of view and it would create the small club who owns the Internet. A: The requirement is not only to aggregate well (shrinks the table), but also to find neutral mechanism of allocation; how to get into that club. Chair: Do you have enough info on /48 proposal? (yes) Chair: OK recommendations of this group are that /48 assignments are to go ahead. This will be taken to ARIN and APNIC.

1 0

RIPE Whois RPSL Migration
by RIPE NCC 21 Dec '00

21 Dec '00

[ Apologies for duplicate mails ] RIPE Whois RPSL Migration The RIPE Database re-implementation project is nearing completion. A key feature of the new database is the implementation of RPSL, to replace the old RIPE-181 standard. RPSL is similar, but not identical, to RIPE-181. The RIPE NCC expects that many programs that use the RIPE Whois database will continue to operate properly without modification. However, some programs may have problems parsing the RPSL format, or be confused by differences in behaviour. We would like to ensure that the transition to RPSL is as easy as possible. Therefore, we are working with the RIPE community to provide resources you can use to check any programs or scripts that you have that use the RIPE Whois database. Please visit our Migration page for further information: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/rpsl/index.html This page will be updated regularly with the latest information. We will provide additional tools and information as they become available. The actual timeline of when the RPSL server will replace the existing RIPE-181 server will be decided at the RIPE-38 meeting. If you want input on when the change will occur, then you should either attend this meeting or post your comments on the RIPE DB mailing list. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/current/ripe-38/index.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/db/index.html Regards, The RIPE Database Group. RIPE NCC

1 0

Reaseon for AS&PI
by Jevgenijs Vaikulis 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Hello, Before writing request to RIPE for new AS and PI i would like to ask Your advice. The main reason for new AS(and PI) - security. We provide some services for local (national, like *.lv) users only (like irc). Firewall dosnt helps, when attacker send a ton of flood our international channel going down. With a AS ill anounce this AS only for national providers. So, is it reason for gettin A&PI? If someone have expirience with such problem, i`ll be very grateful for advice. P.S. Sorry for my poor english. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jevgenijs Vaikulis(EV298-RIPE) +371 7777723 DELFI Internet +371 7777777 Elijas 17, Riga, Latvia http://internet.delfi.lv -----------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Allocations for "always-on" ISPs
by Bruno Ciscato 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Hi! With the advent of technologies like ADSL and Ethernet to the home, several new ISP in Europe are starting to offer "always on" Internet access. The allocation strategies vary, if they give a subnet to each household this is usually a /29, if they group more than one household in each subnet the average IPv4 address consumption by each household can be a little less. In any case they need a lot of addresses, i.e. a few millions. Can someone help me to see if what I think it would happen is correct? 1) they request address space to RIPE, with a nicely written documentation that clearly shows that they need millions of addresses 2) nonetheless they won't receive more than a /20 to begin with 3) when they have used more than 80% of this /20, and can prove it, another one will be assigned, most likely not contiguous 4) and so on and so forth, at a very fast pace, until they will have a very fragmented address space Is this correct ? Is it safe to assume that if they start using public address, where really needed, they will always receive new allocations if they can prove they need it until IPv4 addresses last ? Is there any way to reduce the address space fragmentation due to new non contiguous allocations ? Thanks bruno

15 27

Ripe 141 problem
by Mehdaoui Salma 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Hello, I have sent a request for new addresses (ripe 141) and the answer was that I might have to wait up to a week for an initial response. I would like to precise that the request is very urgent, we need new addresses for our end users. I hope that we will have an answer as soon as possible, to enble us to satisfy our custmors requests. Please send a copy of your answer to satff(a)iam.net.ma Regards Salma

3 2

auto-dbm problems
by Okan Cimen 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Hello, I am trying to update some information about our networks. I have sent the new information to auto-dbm(a)ripe.net but could not get a response for almost 6 hours. Does ayone have a suggestion about it? Is there a problem? Regards Okan

7 8

R: Allocations for "always-on" ISPs
by Pelosi Alessandro,Swisscom Italy 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Ciao I read with a lot of interest the quantity of email regarding this problem. I think that we must avoid to generalize this problem. In most cases NAT or PAT are good solutions both to save waste of Ip addresses (v4 or v6)and to security. In many other cases there is the need to have public IP addresses both for clients and for servers, depends which applications run on these machine and how technology evolves. fortunately we are reducing the waste of ip addresses with new protocols and new features (http 1.1 teaches). Now we are assisting to the birth of many new services that need public ip addresses such as GPRS, video streaming, web controlled machines and so on. I think that in the lounch period of these services there will be a great deal of use of them simply because this is the simplest way to start and debug. I fund a little circuit that works like a web server and can be used to web remote control any kind of device, startink from the washing machine to the coffee distributor etc... http://world.std.com/~fwhite/ace/index.html http://world.std.com/~fwhite/ace/ace2.html To summarize I thing that we should allow to use public ip addresses to those who need and use them (home users, isp, companies and so...), with a little more control about the effective need and usage. Ing. Alessandro Pelosi Network Engineer SWISSCOM SpA Milano +39.02.40.934.312 -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Bruno Ciscato [mailto:bruno@flashnet.it] Inviato: mercoledì 13 dicembre 2000 9.53 A: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Oggetto: Re: Allocations for "always-on" ISPs I'm very glad my mail sparkled such an interesting discussion. I see three main threads developing: 1) NAT or not to NAT 2) prohibit /29 for residential users 3) where is IPv6 First of all let me try to put these problems in the context I was referring to in my mail. The service providers I was thinking about are those who want to offer an always on connection to customers that wont' simply surf the net. Once you have always on connectivity to the Internet you may end up buying an Internet washing machine (http://www.margherita2000.com) and an Internet camera (http://www.axis.com/products/camera_servers/index.htm). These are servers, not clients. Chances are that most devices like these will be manageable by a web browser,so they simply don't work behind a NAT/PAT. So, in this context, these are my opinions regarding the three threads : 1) NAT is bad for users that want to connect to the Internet, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2993.txt and PAT is much worse. NAT/PAT is not an option in the scenario above. 2) how many addresses should RIPE allow a LIR to give to always home customers? /32, /30, /29 ? IF we want to couple a customer with a subnet, I agree with people that are thinking about a /29 at least, because a /30 leaves only one address for your PC. So you cannot use your camera to watch your washing machine doing its job ;-) An alternative would be not to couple a customer with a subnet and give each customer as many address as they need. This would work but would make security, multicast, and probably a few other thins harder to manage. 3) IPv6 is good, see http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-case-for-ipv6-06.txt and the service I'm describing would be much easier to deploy if we had it. Why don't we have it yet? Because we make a fundamental mistake in assessing IPv4 addresses exhaustion rate: we count how many addresses are actually allocated/assigned, not how many addresses people would actually need to access the Internet in a decent way. I've personally worked with two very big companies, one that offers always on Internet access, and the other GPRS. They have not even tried to contact the RIPE to request the public IPv4 addresses they would need to offer an architecturally sound service (see: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt) because they feel they will never get the number of addresses they anticipate to need!! So they try to get away with NAT, and fail. In this way we get the wrong picture and don't realize how much we need IPv6 today, and neither do the network equipment vendors. So I agree with Lars and Oystein: let's run out of IPv4 addresses once for ever, so we can move on to the next stage. And for that matter, let's stop being restrictive about allocations and assignment: let's give plentiful of addresses so we run out faster!! And I'm not kidding. Cheers bruno

1 0

Re: auto-dbm problems
by Javier Llopis 13 Dec '00

13 Dec '00

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:57:19 -0200, Okan Cimen wrote: >I am trying to update some information about our networks. I have sent >the new information to auto-dbm(a)ripe.net but could not get a response >for almost 6 hours. Does ayone have a suggestion about it? Is there a >problem? Same thing here. I've just received a response for a request sent 4 hours ago. Regards Javier Llopis BitMailer, S.L. javier(a)bitmailer.com Juan Bravo 51, Dup. 1-Izq Tel: +34 91 402 1551 28006 Madrid Fax: +34 91 402 4115 SPAIN

1 0