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

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Mally Mclane 11 May '00

11 May '00

{and the bit I accidentally deleted) ...our major clients, (freeserve, lloydstsb, jungle.com etc) but not on vhosts. M > -----Original Message----- > From: Mally Mclane [mailto:mally@theplanet.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:24 PM > To: 'Colin Johnston'; 'lir-wg(a)ripe.net' > Subject: RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > We use FSLabs equipment across most of our major client > > regards, > > mally mclane > =>hostmaster/core systems > =>for the Planet Online, Leeds, UK > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:48 PM > > To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de > > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > > > > > as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named > > vhosts-basis, you > > > would have to read out the FULL ip-header and > > service-specific headers on > > > the router...i think this is not possible without enormous > > CPU-power and > > > would give high delays on the router. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > This is possible using F5Labs equipment however I dont > belive this has > > been fully implemented on large web farms as yet but maybe soon :) > > > > Colin Johnston > > SA > > PSINET UK > > > > >

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Mally Mclane 11 May '00

11 May '00

We use FSLabs equipment across most of our major client regards, mally mclane =>hostmaster/core systems =>for the Planet Online, Leeds, UK > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:48 PM > To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > > as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named > vhosts-basis, you > > would have to read out the FULL ip-header and > service-specific headers on > > the router...i think this is not possible without enormous > CPU-power and > > would give high delays on the router. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > This is possible using F5Labs equipment however I dont belive this has > been fully implemented on large web farms as yet but maybe soon :) > > Colin Johnston > SA > PSINET UK > >

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

Strato is not a good example... for a), you pointed out the important thing: It's inaccurate. If it would only be CPU-Power, you could use an own machine fopr that. forb), the main problem is to write such a software. Who of us has the time to do so? It would be very cool to have such a piece of software, but who can develop it? Or is there something that is capable to do so? Second problem, as you noticed, there could be a need to change your betwork layout. Our backbone is switched, and not every switch (in the Server-Racks we don't use the expensive Ciscos, there are simple Switches without Monitor-Port). So you would have to place the sniffer a) on the firewalls or the routers -> not a good idea - think of CPU, Diskspace, .. or b) but not always possible put in in the transfernet between firewalls and borderrouters. b) could be a olution for us if there were some kind of software usable for that. Greetings Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Entire Systems NOC To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> <noc@entire-sy cc: stems.com> Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Sent by: owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 13:30 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:22:38PM +0200, Mark Lastdrager wrote: > Because of this system it is very hard to implement name-based virtual > hosting, all accounting is done on one IP adress then and we have to > rethink our accounting scheme of virthosts (which takes time, costs money > etc. etc.) Exactly. You basically have to either a) analyze webserver logs (very inaccurate, CPU-intensive) b) write your own accounting software basing on sniffing, analyzing packet payloads for HTTP 1.1 header information and tracing TCP streams. This can also lead to a restructuring of you networks to be able to sniff. AFAIK Strato (hosting >500.000 .de domains) does something like b) 'cause they can't afford spending CPU time on their hosting server to do any accounting... (but this is hearsay). Best regards, Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

2 1

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Javier Llopis 11 May '00

11 May '00

On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:26:19 +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: >We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an >inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would >therefore like to request the community to consider making it >mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with >the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based >web-hosting (eg. SSL). There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. Our typical situation is that when a customer orders a domain named web site it comes along with an FTP server and a POP-3 server so they can have their own email addresses. While we could host all customer pages on the same host with the same IP using HTTP 1.1, in order to do the same with the POP servers we need to distinguish the POP server by its single IP address, since there is no HTTP 1.1 equivalent for POP. So we end up with 99% of our domains having a different IP address each, in which case who _cares_ if we also use that IP address for the web server? Are we really wasting IP address space? Hasn't anybody run into this situation? If so, how are you dealing with it? We would ask that, unless a viable solution to this problem is found, name based hosting should be encouraged but not required. BTW we are adopting HTTP 1.1 name based virtual hosts anyway in case the FTP and POP issues could be solved. 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

6 6

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

For me traffic management means to ensure that some really important sites always have enough bandwith and therefore first limiting bandwith for mail, ftp and so on.Second point is to make sure that even if there is a DoS-attack are something like this that uses all available bandwith that i can make sure to have a usabel SSH-Connection to the hosts (or in general: make sure that there is IN EVERY SITUATION enough bandwith for the netmanagement). ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Mark Lastdrager To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de <mark(a)pine.nl cc: > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting 11.05.00 13:41 At Thu, 11 May 2000, henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de wrote: >Yes, that exactly the way we do it. If I imagine the power needed to >implement this its nearly impossible to reimpleent for ONLY name-based >Virtual Hosts. And if you think of Bandwith management - i don't see any >way to do this on an per name-basis, only per ip (and service) is possible >as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named vhosts-basis, you >would have to read out the FULL ip-header and service-specific headers on >the router...i think this is not possible without enormous CPU-power and >would give high delays on the router. There is something called 'mod_throttle' (if a remember well) for Apache, but I don't think customers are very interested in paying a flat fee for a virthost instead of being fast all the time and paying per MB. Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark(a)lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: quatnum decoherence

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

it's not random. For simple static websites it's about 10-20%. What seems to be not counted is the data sent from the browser to the server, so if you have bigger interactive systems where lots of data ist entered or uploaded by our visitors, the difference is really high. I could do some checks to give you exact data; we did so long ago and decided that there is no good way to do an not-ip-based Accounting. We now have our own Database driven accounting & billing system which would be really complicated if i had to read out all the webserver logs. It would be very cool to have a traffic counter as part of apache (=>module) which stores the traffic on a by-named-host basis. Then Life would be much easier and we would need less IP-Space... (anyone here who has the time and knowledge to write such a module? =;-)))))) ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Dave Wilson <dave.wilson@ To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net heanet.ie> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@ ripe.net 11.05.00 12:51 Henning, > (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) Can you expand on this? Is the difference between counted and real traffic random, or a roughly equal (or proportional) overhead for each server? Is the difference so significant that one cannot take it into account as part of the charging structure? Regards, Dave -- dave.wilson(a)heanet.ie --------------------------------------- +353-1-662-3412 It is one thing to pray; it is another to pray to entities who might not only be listening, but who will search you out on the road and beat you across the head with sticks if you say something that offends them. -- Neil Gaiman ------------------ For crypto key send a blank message to davew+pgp(a)heanet.ie

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Hallgren, Michael 11 May '00

11 May '00

>I have written about accounting, but no one replied! > In a previous life I became familiar with NFR (http://www.nfr.net/) and used it for some accounting tasks (based on other keys than IP addresses). I don't believe I was the only one, but can't remember where I found other people discussing it - if you're interested, I'll dig through my old mail. Then IPv6 :) mh >once again: Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetings from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-sy To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> stems.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 12:31 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:41:58AM +0000, Javier Llopis wrote: > There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into > and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. And another one, not raised (enough): Accounting Best regards, Daniel -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

1 0

WG: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure
by Erhard Werner, ERW 11 May '00

11 May '00

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ExchangeAdmins > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2000 12:34 > An: ExchangeAdmins > Betreff: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure > > The following recipients did not receive the attached mail. A NDR was not > sent to the originator for the following recipients for one of the > following reasons: > > > * The Delivery Status Notification options did not request failure > notification, or requested no notification. > > * The message was of precedence bulk. > > > > NDR reasons are listed with each recipient, along with the notification > requested for that recipient, > or the precedence. > > <felix.fischer(a)cantrade.ch> felix.fischer(a)cantrade.ch > MSEXCH:IMS:CANTRADE:CAZH:CZEXCHANGE1 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient > Precedence: bulk > > The message that caused this notification was: > > <<Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting>>

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Javier Llopis 11 May '00

11 May '00

On Thu, 11 May 2000 11:55:25 +0200 (CEST), Nils Jeppe wrote: >Use one big POP3 server for all of your customers, and either use >"standardized" pop-login names (ie, customercorp01, customercorp02, >othercorp 01, othercorp02, etc) and entries in the alias file to point to >them. It even makes sense to point mail.customerdomain.com as a cname to >your mail.provider.whatever so that if there's a change you don't have to >reconfigure all MUA's. Mmmm... A customer having two addresses in two different files/databases: That works but might be a nightmare to update. 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

2 1

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 May '00

10 May '00

>Certainly the only place I ever see an LIR name used is in the 'X-NCC-RegID' >header, which I'm sure isn't seen by customers. How are similar LIR names >going to confuse the general public when they never see them? ...and even there, the individual tags are qualified by the ISO3166 country codes. I'd be *really* surprised if the NCC would have allocated the same name twice for the *same* country?! -WW _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Matthew Robinson 10 May '00

10 May '00

But surely www.big-importantco.com would have their own machine and wouldn't share with www.my-little-home-page.org ? We try to apply the rule that you should only have unique addresses for ssl servers that can't do IP-less or some other server protocol that can't support it. Many of our customers grumble at first but soon realise that they can add their own IP-less virtuals without need to involve our admin department. All that's needed is a little DNS and the whole job can be completed in a day! My two pence Cheers Matthew -----Original Message----- From: Robert Kiessling [mailto:Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net] Sent: 08 May 2000 17:37 To: Nurani Nimpuno Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Nurani Nimpuno writes: > We would > therefore like to request the community to consider making it > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > web-hosting (eg. SSL). So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there is no SSL or similar use? I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this is no waste of address space. Robert

4 3

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 May '00

10 May '00

Dear Nurani! >Subj: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Before making up my mind I'd like to better understand what (in the following parapraph) >We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an >inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would >therefore like to request the community to consider making it >mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with >the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based >web-hosting (eg. SSL). "NEW installations" is in reality? I could come up with a couple of different interpretations, like: - an existing ISP or Web-Hotel can use the old technology, new sites are required to use the new technology, or - replacing or upgrading en existing web server (hardware only? software only? both?) requires the new technology to be deployed, or - .... But probably it's just because I don't know too much about web hosting in the first place... Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Hallgren, Michael 10 May '00

10 May '00

Robert Kiessling wrote: > Nurani Nimpuno writes: > > We would > > therefore like to request the community to consider making it > > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > > web-hosting (eg. SSL). > > So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP > address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there > is no SSL or similar use? Isn't it a bit unlikely that such a "power-site" would be sitting on a shared server (as avirtual Web) ? mh > > I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since > the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this > is no waste of address space. > > Robert I agree. bh

2 1

ripe-147 syntax checker
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear all, The RIPE NCC is happy to announce a new web-based tool available to our members for AS number requests. This tool performs format- and syntax checking of AS Number requests as described in document ripe-147: "European Autonomous System Number Application Form and Supporting Notes": http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-147.html The tool can be found at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/web147cgi The purpose of AS number request syntax checker is to enable smoother and more accurate processing of AS number requests, minimising lack of information or incorrectly completed ripe-147 forms. Please note that this tool is only for preliminary format- and syntax checking of AS number requests. In order to obtain an AS number, a request needs to be sent to the the RIPE NCC hostmasters at <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>, where it will be processed. We hope our members find this tool useful and we welcome any feedback and comments on this tool. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE backlog
by Hank Nussbacher 09 May '00

09 May '00

I submitted an ASN request to hostmaster in April 27 and got back: >Please note that currently our working wait queue is long and you >might have to wait up to a week for an initial response from a hostmaster. >We are sorry for this delay and we are doing our best to bring the response >times back to normal as soon as possible. We are now well past one week. I think the RIPE NCC should at the very least be sending out notices to its customers in the hold queue that they are still backlogged. Are others waiting just as long? -Hank

5 5

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE H ostmaster
by adrian.pauling＠bt.com 09 May '00

09 May '00

Nominet ( the .uk Domain Registrars ) now retain legal advisors due to the trademark / trading name implications with Domain Names. I'm not sure about other ccTLD Registrars. If RIPE-NCC were to perform trademark/trading name checks, they would have to employ a Trademark Attorney or such specialist legal expert. This would take time to recruit and would increase costs and extend the LIR set-up time. However, it is probably inappropriate for RIPE-NCC to do this. Whilst I sympathise with your position, I'd recommend no legal significance be attached to an LIR's name, and would suggest that your concerns about confusion between the uk.firstnetonlinexxxx is addressed via consultation with Trademark Attorneys (they do exist :-)). Regards, Adrian F Pauling :-)NEL2C Internet Protocol Manager acd Information Systems Engineering Technical Architecture AFP1-RIPE / AFP-ARIN / AFP25-InterNIC * adrian.pauling(a)bt.com * +44 19 2685 1992 / +44 78 0290 4877 British Telecommunications plc Registered Office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no 1800000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Lloyd Smith [SMTP:greg@askfol.com] > Sent: 09 May 2000 10:03 > To: lir-wg > Subject: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE > Hostmaster > > The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject > of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, > which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling > that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis > that > the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the > general public as to which company is which and that since our company was > an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as > well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis > that > their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, > and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and > reputation. > > > Greg Lloyd Smith > uk.firstnetonline > > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > Good morning Greg, > > > [uk.firstnetonline writes] > "FirstNET Online PLC" <webmaster(a)gb-host.com> writes: > * Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter.... What you > could > * have done, was determined whether or not RIPE needed (yet) another LIR, > and > * base that decision on the same factors I was presented with in > Greece... > * That is.. Could they have obtained their IP addresses from their up > line > * connectivity provider, and was there another member using the name > FirstNET > * or something similar... These were the questions I was asked when I > applied > * to RIPE. I am very distressed by the fact that about a week ago there > was > * no other member of RIPE using our name and now there is and (most > * important), there is no connection between our companies. > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > Yes we did all that. Its standard procedure as written in ripe-160. > > [uk.firstnetonline writes] > * I would point out for the record that of the 20 companies I own two of > them > * (FirstNET Online Management Limited and FirstNET Online PLC), and that > only > * three of them are purporting to be ISP's and therefore the change of 20 > of > * them asking you for membership would be limited to the company about > which > * we are complaining and our own 2 companies. > * > * I would therefore ask that we be allowed to appeal to someone within > the > * RIPE organisation to have their membership revoked or repealed since it > * should not have been granted in the first place. I was vetted and I > suspect > * that if there had been a company in Greece using the name Firstnet, you > * would have rejected my application. Why was their application > approved? > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > If your argument is that FirstNet Services should not have been > allowed to become a Local IR because they partly use the same name as > you then you have no agreement according to current policy. We cannot > really stop anyone from becoming a LIR, only recommend them to go > elsewhere for their address space. > > But if you feel strongly about it why don't you write to the LIR > working group mailing list, <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>, and state your case > there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us. > > > >

1 0

Fw: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable)
by Nick Naylor 09 May '00

09 May '00

Misdirected email - I think! ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Baumann <Peter.Baumann(a)commcare.ch> To: <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable) Hello I'm away from 9.5.00 until 12.5.00. Please try to reach me from the 15.5.00. Peter Baumann Commcare AG

1 0

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
by mike.norris＠heanet.ie 09 May '00

09 May '00

> > The following is an extract from a series of communications on the > > subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another > > LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing > > member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the > > addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question > > trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public > > as to which company is which and that since our company was an > > existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country > > as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on > > the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and > > confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an > > existing member's company and reputation. > > Hm, this seems like a strange request. > > The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the > company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's > ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be > concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR > status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that > name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue > should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I > assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK. > > Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but > thus just seemed too obvious... I agree with Håvard. RIPE NCC has no authority to adjudicate on entitlement to trading names; that's a matter for the parties concerned and perhaps the Companies Office in the UK. Regards. Mike

3 2

Re: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable)
by Peter Baumann 09 May '00

09 May '00

Hello I'm away from 9.5.00 until 12.5.00. Please try to reach me from the 15.5.00. Peter Baumann Commcare AG

1 0

We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
by Greg Lloyd Smith 09 May '00

09 May '00

The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation. Greg Lloyd Smith uk.firstnetonline [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Good morning Greg, [uk.firstnetonline writes] "FirstNET Online PLC" <webmaster(a)gb-host.com> writes: * Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter.... What you could * have done, was determined whether or not RIPE needed (yet) another LIR, and * base that decision on the same factors I was presented with in Greece... * That is.. Could they have obtained their IP addresses from their up line * connectivity provider, and was there another member using the name FirstNET * or something similar... These were the questions I was asked when I applied * to RIPE. I am very distressed by the fact that about a week ago there was * no other member of RIPE using our name and now there is and (most * important), there is no connection between our companies. [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Yes we did all that. Its standard procedure as written in ripe-160. [uk.firstnetonline writes] * I would point out for the record that of the 20 companies I own two of them * (FirstNET Online Management Limited and FirstNET Online PLC), and that only * three of them are purporting to be ISP's and therefore the change of 20 of * them asking you for membership would be limited to the company about which * we are complaining and our own 2 companies. * * I would therefore ask that we be allowed to appeal to someone within the * RIPE organisation to have their membership revoked or repealed since it * should not have been granted in the first place. I was vetted and I suspect * that if there had been a company in Greece using the name Firstnet, you * would have rejected my application. Why was their application approved? [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] If your argument is that FirstNet Services should not have been allowed to become a Local IR because they partly use the same name as you then you have no agreement according to current policy. We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR, only recommend them to go elsewhere for their address space. But if you feel strongly about it why don't you write to the LIR working group mailing list, <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>, and state your case there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us.

4 3

Minimum allocation size
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has been monitoring the consumption rates of the initial /19 allocations given to new members over the last couple of years. The results clearly show that a significant amount of these allocations are far from fully used. The majority of these allocations are in fact not used more than 50%. Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns. We will however present the community with clear results and statistics in the lir-wg at the coming RIPE meeting in Budapest for further discussion regarding this proposed policy change. We are looking forward to hearing the community's input on this matter in a constructive and fruitful discussion next week. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

4 4

RE: Minimum allocation size
by Matthew Robinson 09 May '00

09 May '00

How many providers filter less than a /19? Can we not ask them to allow /20's from 'new' allocations? -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Burley [mailto:stephenb@uk.uu.net] Sent: 09 May 2000 9:59 To: lucks(a)indigo.ie Cc: Nurani Nimpuno; lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: Minimum allocation size This is a very good point, the only way round this is to have a mid way transit point so 2 companies would share an announcment of a /19 i can not see very many people agreeing to that. Maybe if 2 the registries have a common upstream provider the provider would agree to aggregate, but even then this causes problems when changing providers. Do you have any more concrete proposals than the basic statement?

1 0

IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear lir-wg, At the end of 1999 we raised the issue of IP Assignment to virtual web-hosting and we believe that it now is high time to conclude this discussion. We received very useful feedback from the community and we also brought the discussion further to the other RIRs, ARIN and APNIC. This has now also been discussed in their respective regions. In the RIPE community there was tremendously strong endorsement for name-based web-hosting although there were also several arguments against a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting. There were technical arguments put forward, naming examples where IP-based web-hosting is necessary in order to allow certain technologies or applications such as SSL for example, but there were also voices raised against the hassle of upgrading old hard- and software. The RIPE NCC is in favour of a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting when technically feasible. However, due to some of the voices raised against this, we believe an accurate conclusion at this moment would be to not change any policy at this point, but to further strongly discourage IP-based web-hosting. We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would therefore like to request the community to consider making it mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based web-hosting (eg. SSL). We wish to add this to the agenda at the upcoming RIPE meeting for further discussion and welcome any input the community may have on this matter. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

5 4

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 09 May '00

09 May '00

Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than onme site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to cout the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetinmgs from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Sascha Luck <lucks@indigo To: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> .ie> cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@ ripe.net 08.05.00 18:36 Please respond to lucks Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno: > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > web-hosting (eg. SSL). I'd go one step further and make it mandatory to use HTTP 1.1 based hosting for _upgraded_ installations. I don't know how to enforce that, however. Otherwise, I can live with that proposal. Best regards, s. -- Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill mailto: lucks(a)indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2

1 0