June 2001 - 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

AW: Initial PA Allocation Criteria
by Koepp, Karsten 22 Jun '01

22 Jun '01

Hans Petter and all, I am not quite determined about the alternative. Yes, I think the initial requirement needs to be less then the /22, admitting that the situation will then not change dramatically, because a /24 is easy to prove. Concerning Dave's proposal: >Perhaps a clause to permit allocations to organisations that provide or can >prove intent to provide commercial services to third parties should be added. Who else is applying for a LIR? Couldn't everybody claim that? What about the already raised proposal to set-up a usage criteria and to (maybe bi-annually) revise allocations? Could that be handled from the NCC? And are we gonna have a further increase of LIR applications over the years to come? Is it worth it? More questions then answers. Regards Karsten > Von: Hans Petter Holen [SMTP:hph@online.no] > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2001 13:52 > An: Koepp, Karsten; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: Initial PA Allocation Criteria > > | after having read several opinions in this thread, > | I still don't agree to some points. I do think, > | the policy as proposed would represent a drawback > | for start-ups entering the market. > > But how do you propose to deal with that ? > Lower the initial requirement to some lower percentage ? > > -hph >

2 1

ARIN to Allocate from 67.0.0.0/8 and 68.0.0.0/8 (fwd)
by Sabrina Waschke 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Dear all, [Apologies for duplicate messages] Please see below ARIN's announcement of their new allocations. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke Registration Services Operations Manager RIPE NCC ------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:35:57 -0400 From: "Richard Jimmerson" <richardj(a)arin.net> To: <arin-announce(a)arin.net>, <nanog(a)nanog.org>, <apops(a)apnic.net>, <eof-list(a)ripe.net>, <afrinic-discuss(a)afrinic.org> Subject: ARIN to Allocate from 67.0.0.0/8 and 68.0.0.0/8 In the near future, ARIN will begin making allocations from 67.0.0.0/8 and 68.0.0.0/8. This will include allocations of /20 and shorter prefixes, according to ARIN's minimum allocation policy. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered blocks can be found at http://www.arin.net/regserv/IPStats.html Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Initial PA Allocation Criteria
by Koepp, Karsten 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Hi, after having read several opinions in this thread, I still don't agree to some points. I do think, the policy as proposed would represent a drawback for start-ups entering the market. > -----Urspruengliche Nachricht----- > Von: RIPE NCC Staff [SMTP:ncc@ripe.net] > Gesendet am: Freitag, 15. Juni 2001 17:06 > An: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Initial PA Allocation Criteria > > Dear all, > > Further to my mail on PA Allocation criteria (see below), here follows > a concrete proposal, including details of the actual criteria to be > determined. Very little feedback was received on the last mail asking > for input on the actual details of such criteria. Therefore, in order > to move forward and establish the details of these criteria, please > find below a clear proposal of criteria for the initial PA Allocation > received by a newly established Local IR. > > Proposed Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation > ----------------------------------------------- > The Local IR is required to: > > - Demonstrate previous efficient utilisation of a /22 (1024 > addresses). > > Or > > - Demonstrate immediate need for a /22 > Take a start-up access provider x.net that wants to be multi-homed. This proposal in turn means x.net will either have to make up figures to create this immediate need or will have to start with PI space. Will they get PI space without having enough customers? - no! I think taken the policy, those providers will have to start their business being single-homed with PA address space from their upstream provider. This is a major disadvantage. Only after having a /22 filled, the company could start to apply for a LIR, a somewhat time-consuming process. With a successful business, x.net will already have a /21 of borrowed PA space announced. > Renumbering: > If current address space held by the Local IR amounts to a /22 or > less, the Local IR is required to renumber that address space into the > PA Allocation it will receive from the RIPE NCC. Once x.net has reached the status of a LIR they can become multi-homed. Will they get their address space routed? Only if it is declared PI. If so, they should definitely not be forced to renumber. If x.net uses other one's PA so far, they will have to renumber for routability. X.net will have to approach their customers to renumber their network. Who of the readers would choose x.net as provider where you know you'd have to renumber at some stage? This is the second major disadvantage. > Can the lir-wg agree with the above proposed criteria? > If no further objections are raised I would like to suggest that the > RIPE NCC moves forward and implements this policy. > Honestly, I believe the community should take measures to preserve address space. The lowering of the initial assignment to /20 was such a measure. The proposal to revoke allocations is another good one. But I do object to this proposal, although our company is beyond this stage. > Please let us know if you are not in agreement with the above. > > Kind regards, > > Nurani Nimpuno > > +------------------------------------+ > | Nurani Nimpuno | > | Internet Address Policy Manager | > | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | > | http://www.ripe.net | > +------------------------------------+ > Kind regards Karsten - ------------------------------------------------------------- Karsten Koepp Core network planning IP Lambdanet Communications GmbH (AS13237) FirstMark Communications GmbH Guenther-Wagner-Allee 13 D-30177 Hannover (Germany) Phone +49 (0)511 / 84 88 - 12 55 Fax +49 (0)511 / 84 88 - 12 69 Mobile +49 (0)178 / 3 62 - 12 55 mailto:Karsten.Koepp@firstmark.de News & Facts finden Sie auf unserer Website: www.firstmark.de - ------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message

3 2

Private address and static IP as an commercial offer.
by Arif OKTAY 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Hi All, I appreciate if someone clarifies the situations for the following; 1- Address Translation and Private Address Space Usage. Some of my customers want to use public addresses with no technical reason. Their main concern is to avoid the extra expenditure for a NAT/proxy/firewall. Should I force them to use one ? 2- I've seen the following advertisement on the net. Doesn't this constitute a violation of the policy as " IP addresses does not have any commercial value". There wasn't any extra info whether this amount was billed for dns records or any other service. Advertisement was from ARIN region. "For just an additional $15/month, you can get a single static IP address - perfect for using your company's VPN (Virtual Private Network) or accessing the corporate network. The Static IP feature is only available at your residential location. Currently, the feature is only available for new customers in certain areas. For more information and to order your Static IP address today, please call x-xxx-xxx-xxxx and ask for the "Static IP feature". " thnx arif ao189-ripe -------------------------------------------------------------- Arif OKTAY Türk Telekom Turk Telekom Biliþim Aðlarý Dairesi Informatics Department IP Uygulamalarý Müdürlüðü IP Applications Group Tel:+90 312 5551922 Fax:+90 312 5551959 -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK (V.O.) When deep space exploration ramps up, it will be corporations that name everything. The IBM Stellar Sphere. The Philip Morris Galaxy. Planet Starbucks. --------------------------------------- Fight Club ---

10 13

RE: Private address and static IP as an commercial offer.
by John Crain 19 Jun '01

19 Jun '01

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Chris Hallam wrote: Hi Chris, Most of my knowledge is second hand so I would advise reading the RFC's on this (They are actually interesting reading). I have played around with a few NAT solutions and yes they work, to some peoples definition of the word "work". If you want to read a well worded and fairly level documentation on advantages and disadvantages I would advize reading rfc2993 which covers many different aspects of NAT issues. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2993.txt <CUT> I wrote about four paragraphs here but deleted them, I was getting religious. This happens a lot when NATs are discussed:) <CUT> Undeniably people are using NAT's now and they are communicating with each other and us. NATs have advantages in IP address management, I think the question people should ask is "In my specific situation do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?". This is a business decision but I think that most people making the decision aren't even aware of the issues. If you get questions give people the link above. Let them make an informed decision. In case you ask, no I don't use NAT, my decision you make yours:) John > Hello John, > > Just out of interest, what would you say the disadvantages with NAT are? > > Please forward your response to the mailing list if you think that it is > appropriate. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Crain [mailto:crain@icann.org] > Sent: 18 June 2001 19:37 > To: Hans Petter Holen > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: Private address and static IP as an commercial offer. > > > > I think, at least when I worked for the RIPE registry we did, the registry > only makes people aware of the technology and doesn't support or denounce > it. > > This is as it should be. To NAT or not to NAT is often a business decision > that needs to be made by the end user. Keeping end users informed of such > technology is a good thing. Forcing people to either use it or not use it > would be a bad thing. > > I get the impression that NATs are widely used throughout Europe. Often seen > as a way of addressing IP conservation issues and security at the same time. > > Often people aren't aware of the disadvantages though. > > JC > > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept > for the presence of computer viruses. > > ********************************************************************** >

1 0

cgi-bin/whois?query broken
by Heiko Blume 18 Jun '01

18 Jun '01

hello when inserting objects with <angle brackets> like this: import: from AS1273 action pref=100; accept <AS-ECRC> AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0} the query http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/whois?query=AS5427 will not display the data correctly: import: from AS1270 action pref=100; accept AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0} also, AFAIR previously the http output made the 'ASxxx' strings as links to the objects which was very convenient. will we see that again? regards, heiko -- Heiko Blume (HB21) mailto:heiko.blume@iprimus.de iPrimus Telecommunications GmbH http://www.iprimus.de Marienburger Str. 1, D-10405 Berlin Phone: +49.30/443366-0 Fax: -15 Core-l -- If you don't know then you don't need to know

1 0

RE: Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion
by paul.mylotte＠bt.com 16 Jun '01

16 Jun '01

Folks, who do I contact regarding the availability (or otherwise) of the S/W tool for LIR self auditing? In fact, what tools are available for IPaddress management in general? Thanks in advance. Paul P. S. Mylotte IP Addressing & Naming BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte(a)bt.com BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be priveleged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address above) immediately.

3 2

IP address management tools available from RIPE
by paul.mylotte＠bt.com 15 Jun '01

15 Jun '01

Apologies, I have now added a more meaningful subject title :-) Paul P. S. Mylotte IP Addressing & Naming BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte(a)bt.com BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be priveleged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address above) immediately. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mylotte,PS,Paul,DKF MYLOTTPS R > Sent: 14 June 2001 16:25 > To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion > > Folks, > > who do I contact regarding the availability (or otherwise) of > the S/W tool for LIR self auditing? In fact, what tools are > available for IPaddress management in general? > > Thanks in advance. > > Paul > > > P. S. Mylotte > IP Addressing & Naming > BTexact Technologies > Adastral Park > 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 > paul.mylotte(a)bt.com > > BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc > Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ > Registered in England no. 1800000 > > This electronic message contains information from British > Telecommunications plc which may be priveleged or confidential. The > information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity > named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in > error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address > above) immediately. > >

2 1

Re: Private address and static IP as an commercial offer.
by Arif OKTAY 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

hi, so if we keep the ration on this logic this cost also should be proportional to the IP adresses assigned ? seems hard to justify what complies with the policy and what doesn't . arif, At 14.06.2001, you wrote: >At 11:45 14/06/2001, Arif OKTAY wrote: >>2- I've seen the following advertisement on the net. Doesn't this >>constitute a violation of the policy as " IP addresses does not have any >>commercial value". > >There is an argument to be made that assigning static IPs places a >monetizable cost on the ISP, in terms of extra systems, configuration, >support etc. Wouldn't these be legitimate reasons for charging? > >Alex. -------------------------------------------------------------- Arif OKTAY Türk Telekom Turk Telekom Biliþim Aðlarý Dairesi Informatics Department IP Uygulamalarý Müdürlüðü IP Applications Group Tel:+90 312 5551922 Fax:+90 312 5551959 -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK Why are you doing this? MARLA It's cheaper than a movie, and there's free coffee. --------------------------------------- Fight Club ---

2 1