June 2001 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Good News..
by Axel Pawlik 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

Dear all, [apologies for duplicate mails] During the INET conference, that took place last week in Stockholm, Brian Carpenter presented this year's Jonathan Postel Award to Daniel Karrenberg. To quote from the Internet Society's website: >The Jonathan B. Postel Service Award was established by the Internet >Society to honor a person who has made outstanding contributions in >service to the data communications community. It is named for Dr. Jonathan >B. Postel to recognize and commemorate the extraordinary stewardship >exercised by Jon over the course of a thirty year career in networking. Daniel, whom many of you know as one of the founding members of RIPE, and who conceived the concept of the RIPE NCC, and served as its General Manager from 1992 to 1999, was commended for his nearly 20 year long involvement with networking and the Internet in Europe, and for his continuously selfless contributions to the Internet community. It is with special delight that we congratulate Daniel today, and wish him equal success during the coming decades! And, of course, all of us at the RIPE NCC are very happy that Daniel is still "one of us"... kind regards, Axel Pawlik

1 0

Staffing update, and good news
by Axel Pawlik 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

Dear all, it gives me great pleasure to announce that we have chosen Sabrina Waschke to fill the newly created position of Registration Services Operations Manager. As such, Sabrina will be responsible of the day to day operations of Registrations Services, overseeing the quality of service. A big part of her tasks is to take care of the Registration Services staff. Sabrina will report directly to the Managing Director. Sabrina has already started in her new position effective of 1 June. Also, as of 1 June, Nurani Nimpuno has become the Internet Address Policy Manager. Her responsiblities are primarily to maintain, and develop RS related policies. Also a major part of Nurani's tasks will be to closely monitor the relevant mailing lists (notably lir-wg), and to pro-actively contribute where and when appropriate. Further, as a result of the discussions between the RIRs over the last months, Nurani will be responsible to co-ordinate policies with the other RIRs; this will enable a globally more consistent policy making process. Nurani will continue to report to the Managing Director. I'm looking forward to working together closely with Sabrina and Nurani. kind regards, Axel Pawlik

1 0

NAMEREGISTRY.COM - NICS.NET - DOMAINAMES.COM
by BucklesBW＠aol.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

DOMAIN PRICE 2000nic.net $1,000 800nic.net $1,500 888nic.net $1,500 abbreviaziones.com $3,500 abreger.com $3,000 abreviacao.com $4,500 abreviacao.net n/a abreviacao.org n/a abreviacaos.com $4,500 abreviacaos.net n/a abreviacaos.org n/a abreviacion.com $3,500 abreviaciones.com $4,000 abreviaciones.net n/a abreviar.com $3,000 abreviatura.com $4,000 abreviatura.net n/a abreviaturas.net $3,500 acronimo.net $3,500 acronyme.com $4,000 acronyme.net n/a acronymes.com $4,000 acronymes.net n/a addressmaster.com $3,500 addressregistry.com $12,000 aenic.com $1,500 afix.org $2,000 afrix.com $2,000 ahix.net $2,000 apix.org $2,500 ap-nic.net $2,000 arpanic.com $4,000 arpanic.net n/a arpanic.org n/a artsnic.com $2,500 artsnic.net n/a auix.com $3,000 auix.org n/a autonic.com $4,000 autonic.net n/a aznic.net $1,500 bankdirectory.com $10,000 banknic.net $3,000 bbnic.org $1,500 bdix.net $2,000 bdnic.org $1,500 bhnic.net $2,000 bhnic.org n/a bnnic.com $2,000 bnnic.org n/a boatnic.net $1,500 bonic.org $1,500 brnic.org $1,500 bynic.org $1,500 bznic.net $1,500 carnic.net $3,000 cctld.net $10,000 cctlds.com $15,000 cctlds.net n/a cfpnic.net $2,250 chironic.net $1,750 classifiedchannel.com $10,000 cnix.org $3,500 country-code.com $3,500 country-code.net n/a countrycode.net $4,000 countrycode.org n/a country-codes.com $3,000 countrycodes.net $4,000 countrycodes.org n/a cpanic.net $2,500 cparegistry.com $8,000 cunic.com $2,000 cunic.org n/a cyberegistry.com $5,000 cyberlocation.com $5,000 cybersecurity.com $15,000 cyberswamp.net $5,000 ddsnic.org $1,500 decimals.net $2,500 decimals.org n/a deix.net $2,000 digidomains.com $8,000 diginames.com $4,000 digitaladdress.com $5,000 digitalocation.com $5,000 digitalregistry.com $9,000 digitalwords.com $2,000 dknic.com $1,500 domainame.org $9,500 domainames.com $25,000 domainames.net n/a domainlogic.com $10,000 domainpower.com $13,000 domainshoppe.com $8,000 dznic.org $1,500 ecnic.com $3,500 ecnic.net n/a edunic.com $4,000 edunic.net n/a edunic.org n/a egnic.net $2,000 egnic.org n/a equations.net $4,000 equations.org n/a eurnic.com $3,500 eurnic.org n/a firmnic.com $2,000 firmnic.net n/a fjix.com $2,500 fjix.net n/a fjnic.com $1,500 fmnic.com $2,500 fxnic.com $1,500 gdix.net $2,000 gdnic.com $2,000 gdnic.net n/a grnic.com $1,500 gtnic.net $1,500 gzix.com $2,500 gzix.net n/a gznic.net $2,000 gznic.org n/a hbnic.com $2,500 hbnic.net n/a hbnic.org n/a healthnic.net $2,500 healthregistry.com $4,000 hillarygate.com $4,000 hlthnic.net $1,500 idix.org $2,000 ilix.net $2,000 ilnic.com $2,000 ilnic.net n/a indns.com $4,000 innic.com $4,500 innic.org n/a internetlocation.com $7,000 internetregistry.com $15,000 iprotocol.net $3,500 iqnic.net $1,750 irnic.net $2,000 irnic.org n/a iso3166.com $3,000 iso3166.net n/a iso3166code.com n/a iso-3166code.com n/a iso3166code.net n/a iso3166codes.com n/a iso-3166codes.com n/a iso3166codes.net n/a iso-3166codes.net n/a iso3166countrycode.com n/a iso-3166countrycode.com n/a iso3166countrycodes.com n/a iso-3166countrycodes.com n/a iso3166countrycodes.net n/a itldnic.net $1,500 itlds.com $13,000 itlds.net n/a iwords.net $4,000 jonic.net $1,500 jpix.org $2,000 kgnic.com $1,500 krix.org $2,000 kurzform.com $4,500 kurzform.net n/a kurzform.org n/a kwnic.com $2,500 kwnic.net n/a kwnic.org n/a laix.net $2,500 laix.org n/a lawnic.net $3,250 lawregistry.com $10,000 managedcare.org $10,000 mdnic.net $5,000 mednic.net $3,750 mednic.org n/a milnic.com $4,000 milnic.net n/a mindaddress.com $1,750 mnnic.com $1,500 moix.net $2,500 moix.org n/a movienic.org $1,500 myix.net $3,500 myix.org n/a name4sale.com $5,000 namechannel.com $6,000 namegiver.com $6,000 namehouse.com $4,000 namehut.com $6,000 namelogic.com $10,000 namemaster.com $10,000 nameregistry.com $18,000 namescape.com $10,000 nameservice.com $12,000 nameshoppe.com $6,000 namewarehouse.com $5,000 nanic.net $2,000 nanic.org n/a negatives.net $3,500 negatives.org n/a netlocation.com $10,000 newsnic.net $2,500 ngnic.net $1,500 nics.net $18,000 nlnic.com $2,000 ntlds.com $13,000 ntlds.net n/a numeral.net $3,000 numerals.net $3,000 numerals.org n/a numnic.com $1,750 numnic.net n/a orgnic.net $2,750 palabras.org $2,000 perfectdomains.com $10,000 perfectnames.com $6,000 perfectwords.com $2,000 phix.org $2,000 phnic.com $1,500 pknic.org $1,500 premierdomains.com $10,000 premiernames.com $6,000 premierwords.com $2,000 previewchannel.com $13,000 prnic.org $1,750 ptnic.net $1,500 qanic.com $1,750 qualitynames.com $6,000 qualitywords.com $2,000 recnic.org $2,000 ripe.org $6,000 ruix.com $3,000 ruix.net n/a ruix.org n/a runic.net $1,500 rxnic.com $2,750 rxnic.net n/a rxnic.org n/a sanic.org $1,500 sgix.net $3,500 sgix.org n/a shopnic.com $2,750 shopnic.net n/a siglas.net $4,000 siglas.org n/a storenic.com $2,750 storenic.net n/a strategicwords.com $2,000 superiordomains.com $10,000 superiornames.com $6,000 superiorwords.com $2,000 synic.net $1,500 thix.org $2,000 tjnic.com $2,000 tjnic.org n/a tmnic.com $3,000 tmnic.org n/a tpnic.org $1,500 trnic.org $1,500 tvdirectory.com $15,000 twnic.org $2,000 uanic.org $1,500 unnic.net $1,500 usadns.com $8,000 usadns.net n/a usaix.net $5,000 usaix.org n/a usanic.org $3,000 usanoc.com $4,000 usanoc.net n/a usnic.com $10,000 usnic.org n/a usnoc.net $4,000 uynic.com $1,500 uznic.com $1,500 venic.net $1,500 virtual-broker.com $8,000 vnix.net $2,500 vnix.org n/a vnnic.org $1,500 webword.net $5,000 wordbroker.com $2,000 wordirectory.com $4,000 wordlisting.com $3,000 wordlistings.com $3,000 wordshoppe.com $3,000 wordwarehouse.com $2,000 wordwizards.com $2,000 zaix.net $2,000 zanic.net $2,000 zanic.org n/a zjix.com $2,500 zjix.net n/a zjnic.com $2,500 zjnic.net n/a zjnic.org n/a zmnic.org $1,500 "N/A" indicates that the domain is part of a package. Contact: Brian Buckles 217-787-1701

1 0

IP Management Tool - Minimum Requirements
by Maldwyn Morris 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Hello everyone, Guy wrote: > > I am officially asking Mal to please repost the > current requirements back up on this list. [...] Happy to oblige. Cheers, Maldwyn Morris Software Manager RIPE NCC -- Hi, Following a presentation of an IP Management Tool by Guy Vegoda at the last RIPE Meeting Tools BOF, interest was expressed in the development of an Open Source version of such a tool and I agreed to use the lirwg list to try and draw up Requirements for this. Hopefully this can be refined into something that we can then begin writing Specifications for. Please remember that these are *Requirements* - i.e. what the users want the tool to do. Please confine remarks to this area and avoid mixing in the *Specifications* - i.e. how those requirements will be met - which we will come to, in good time. It should also be emphasised that we would at this stage like to concentrate on _minimum_ requirements for a simple tool, such that it would be useful to a large number of LIRs. I think we can use these Minimum Requirements to produce something that may or may not include more advanced features as well, knowing that we would at least have covered the basic needs. Comments on this process and the document are most welcome, and we would also like a good name. Thanks to Guy Vegoda, Leo Vegoda and Nigel Titley for their help in drawing up this document, and especially to Guy for presenting his tool. Cheers, Maldwyn Morris Software Manager RIPE NCC -- Minimum Requirements for an IP Management Tool ---------------------------------------------- 0. Introduction Guy Vegoda presented an IP Management Tool at the Tools BOF at RIPE 38 [1]. This document is an attempt to specify the minimum requirements for a similar tool, with the aim of producing an Open Source version for anyone who wants to use it. Below, I address 1. General Points about the project, 2. The Requirements themselves, 3. External Constraint that must be considered, and 4. A list of References. 1. General Points Name: Let's use IPMT ( IP Management Tool ) as a placeholder for now. Users: We will target as users 'The Hostmaster staff of Local Internet Registries which are Customers of the RIPE NCC and who need to manage their IP Allocations and Assignments and the requests for same that they send to the RIPE NCC' [phew]. We will call one of these people a 'LIRHostmaster' and their organisation an 'LIR'. It may also be useful to other people in other organisations to do other things, but that will not influence the requirements. Open Source: We will release this software under the LGPL licence [2]. We use this instead of GPL [3] because this means we will remain able to using non-GPL'ed libraries, should that prove necessary. The RIPE NCC is happy to support this project, but of course its Open Source nature means anyone else can use the code to begin their own Open Source project. We are also happy about that. IPV6: We would be foolish not to consider the possibility of using this tool for managing IPV6 addresses and writing it such that this is possible, but we think it will be useful even if it does not and do not consider IPV6 support a requirement. 2. Requirements General functionality: IPMT should provide the LIRHostmasters with list, create, update, and delete access to information regarding their LIR's IPV4 allocations. These actions must be undoable where necessary. Basic validity checks will be performed on all input. IPMT should provide the LIRHostmasters with list, create, update, and delete access to information regarding their LIR's IPV4 assignments. These actions must be undoable where necessary. Basic validity checks will be performed on all input. IPMT should allow the LIRHostmasters to receive requests for IPV4 assignments from the customers of their LIR and allow them to process them. IPMT should allow LIRHostmasters to send well-formatted email requests for new IPv4 assignments to the RIPE NCC and allow the LIRHostmasters to receive and process responses from the RIPE NCC. IPMT should allow LIRHostmasters to send well-formatted email requests for new IPv4 allocations to the RIPE NCC and allow the LIRHostmasters to receive and process responses from the RIPE NCC. User Interface: LIRHostmasters should be able to conveniently access IPMT functions from a wide range of Desktop Operating Systems, possibly including non-modern, non-Unix-like ones. A GUI interface is the minimal acceptable convenience level. A less-convenient interface to IPMT for more complex functions and administration is acceptable. 3. External constraints The RIPE NCC only accepts requests for new IPv4 Assignments and Allocations via email to hostmaster(a)ripe.net and replies only via email [4]. IPV4 Assignment requests must be in RIPE 141 format [5]. Requests for new IPV4 Allocations have no special format. LIRHostmasters handle customer requests for Assignments via telephone, email and web pages. IPMT must have access to the RIPE DB [6] or a local mirror thereof. 4. References [1] http://www/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/index.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html [3] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [4] http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/status.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-141.html [6] http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/

3 2

Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion
by RIPE NCC Staff 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Dear all, Thank you for you input thus far in the discussion on portable address space. Many useful points have been raised on the matter of PI address space and PA Allocations. (The complete discussion can be read at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00130.html) Below is an attempt to summarise the discussion so far: The concept of smaller allocations (than current /20) was initially brought but the majority felt that this was not a realistic option. The comments showed concern about the exponential growth in the routing table and it was believed that smaller allocations would further contribute to this growth. There was consequently further discussion on how the RIR policies can prevent/reduce this through sensible address allocation/assignment criteria. On the subject of PI assignments, related to the current growth in the routing table, it was agreed that PI assignments should (as current policy states) be based on need and not routability. It was further stated that end users should be discouraged from multi-homing with globally visible address space. Some participants of the discussion argued for a complete discontinuation of PI. Most contributors agreed that /20 PA Allocations should be given to organisations who wish to further assign addresses to customers / end-users from their PA block. PA Allocations should not be made to organisations to satisfy pure multi-homing / independence needs. A set of criteria should therefore be determined to clarify this. Lastly, the majority agreed that the PA Allocation criteria should be based on previous efficient utilisation. There was further discussion with regards to the size of the efficiently utilised address space the requestor needs to demonstrate. The prefix sizes /22 and /21 were briefly discussed. If the community believes that this is a just summary of the discussion, I wish to move forward and determine the details of such criteria, through presenting a few very concrete discussion points. I would like your opinion on the following: 1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set: The requesting organisation need to show - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx or - Immediate need for a /xx ? 2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to demonstrate efficient utilisation of A. /22 or B. /21 ? 3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate need of a A. /22 or B. /21? 4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber depending on the sizes of its current aggregates? 4A. If so, what is a reasonable size of the smallest aggregate that an organisation would be required to renumber? I am looking forward to your input on these concrete points. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno RIPE NCC

2 1