March 2002 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects
by Sabrina Wilmot 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

For security and consistency reasons the RIPE NCC maintains the inetnum objects describing allocations with all their information. Requests for changes should be submitted to the <lir-help(a)ripe.net> mailbox. This procedure will continue until the development of accessing and modifying the LIRs own data using currently avaiable technologies such as a secure web site is finished. An LIR might experience delays in the handling of its request when necessary information is not provided to the RIPE NCC. If the reason for changing contact/maintainer information is that an LIR acquires other ISPs/LIRs then there are more RIPE NCC procedures to follow then just requesting a change of contacts in the allocation objects. Kind regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

2 1

more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects
by Tanja Heimes 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Hi Lir-WG, this is a hostmasters argument upon my question why I am not able to change the contacts and mnt-routes in my own allocation by myself. I am interested if somebody else is sharing my opinion. Hostmasters argument: "It is not possible for you to update an allocation object because RIPE NCC is the maintainer of these objects, which makes sense. :)" This is my opinion: Yes, it makes sence that RIPE NCC is the maintainer of a LIRs allocation. But in my opinion it makes NO sence that Cable and Wireles (and all other LIRs) as mnt-lower do not have the authority to change their own administrative and technical contacts in the allocation. There must be an restricted authority for a mnt-lower to change things like that by their own. I think especially about following attributes: (marked with +++) inetnum: 62.208.0.0 - 62.208.255.255 netname: DE-ECRC-970502 descr: ECRC GmbH country: DE +++++admin-c: EN65-RIPE +++++tech-c: EN65-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: CW-EUROPE-GSOC +++++mnt-routes: CW-EUROPE-GSOC changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 20010814 source: RIPE In my opiniom it makes no sence that for a very simple change in the allocation, that does actually not affect the allocation itself we have to send requests to the hostmasters and wait sometimes weeks for their handling. I think that persons that stand behind the respective reg-id should have this authority. Best regards, Tanja Heimes -- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes(a)de.cw.com Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de

3 4

RE: more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects
by Koepp, Karsten 14 Mar '02

14 Mar '02

Hi I fully support Tanja's and Arnd's proposal. Several people (myself as well) had already requested some improvements on the mnt-routes problem, because it is a frequent problem for network operators. The proposed change should be very easy for inetnums with existing mnt-lower object, such a change was already done to include mnt-routes. But I imagine manual updates would be necessary for inet-nums with "mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT". Dear hostmasters, can we see figures on how many allocation objects exist of either sort? Regards Karsten Koepp > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av@nethead.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:11 PM > To: Tanja Heimes > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects > > > Hi, > > Tanja Heimes wrote: > [..] > > This is my opinion: > > Yes, it makes sence that RIPE NCC is the maintainer of a LIRs > > allocation. > > But in my opinion it makes NO sence that Cable and Wireles (and all > > other LIRs) as mnt-lower > > do not have the authority to change their own administrative and > > technical contacts in the allocation. > > IMO this is correct. The LIR should be able to modify this information > without needing to write to hostmaster(a)ripe.net (which may take some > time depending on how busy the hostmaster team is). > > admin-c, tech-c, mnt-lower and mnt-routes within an > allocation should be > changeable by the LIR itself. > > I know this is difficult to accomplish while "mnt-by:" points to > an ripe-maintainer. But as far as i know RIPE has a second database > where all allocations are stored for cross-checlking. > Therefore we could > take an approach where the allocation may only be created by RIPE but > may be updated by the according LIR. This can simply be > accomplished by > removing the RIPE-Maintainer from the object after creation > and change it > to the according maintainer of the LIR. > > regards, > > Arnd Vehling > -- > > NetHead Network Design and Security > Arnd Vehling av(a)nethead.De > Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 > 50679 Cologne, Germany Fax : +49 221 8809212 >

3 2

Quick question
by Stephen Burley 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

Hi The auto dbm system seems to be very slow again is there any particular reason for this? Is someone constnatly trawling the DB? Just wondering? Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster

2 1

Re: Do not remember this
by Sabrina Wilmot 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

Some time ago the RIPE NCC introduced a system through which LIRs could inform the RIPE NCC of changes to their LIR contacts by updating their role object. Adding the attribute [notify: hm-dbm-msgs(a)ripe.net] within their role object meant that whenever this role object was updated the RIPE NCC would get a RIPE database notification message and update the internal record for your Local Internet Registry contacts based on the tech-c or admin-c changes made within the role object. This system was introduced because at that time the only way LIRs were able to inform the RIPE NCC of changes to their Local Internet Registry contacts was through the <hostmaster(a)ripe.net> mailbox. Nowadays LIRs can notify the RIPE NCC of changes through the <lir-help(a)ripe.net> mailbox which is ticketised and thus all emails are archived. Using the 'notify' system within a role object for LIR contact changes proved to be very time consuming, impractical and above all not very reliable for several reasons: - The same role object was sometimes updated 3 times a week: adding a contact one day, removing it the next day and adding it again 12 hours later. The intention of changing LIR contacts so frequently is questionable. - Role objects were referring to other role objects with or without the notify attribute pointing to the RIPE NCC. Verification of the requested changes was difficult. - Some LIRs did not realise that if they removed a contact from their role object, this contact would no longer be able to submit request forms to the RIPE NCC. Implications of changes to the role object were often not realised by the LIRs and produced misunderstandings. Information about this purely operational change to the procedure of changing LIR contacts was only sent to those LIRs who had a notify attribute pointing to <hm-dbm-msgs(a)ripe.net> in their role object(s). Apologies for the lack of explanation in that message. Using the <lir-help(a)ripe.net> mailbox proved to be a much more consistent, reliable and efficient way of changing confidential contact information. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o "Stephen Burley" <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net> writes: * Hi * I am a little concerned with the email we recieved today (copied below * in part). This was sent to the community and enforced without any reason why * or justification or even a dicussion as the the change in working practice. * As the NCC work for the benefit of the RIPE community i would have thought * this sort of change in working practice would have to be agreed with the * community before the announcment went out. I may have missed the discussion * on the list and if so i am sorry but i still would think it manners to * explain why. I for one found this functionality very useful. * * Regards, * Stephen Burley * UUNET EMEA Hostmaster * SB855-ripe * * * [PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO YOUR LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY CONTACT] * * Dear Colleague, * * This email is to inform you that the RIPE NCC no longer updates * its internal record for your Local Internet Registry contacts * based on the tech-c or admin-c changes you make within your role * object. Therefore we ask you to remove the line * 'notify: hm-dbm-msgs(a)ripe.net' from your role object: * * *

9 10

Re: AS number revokes
by Sabrina Wilmot 01 Mar '02

01 Mar '02

"Stephen Burley" <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net> writes: * Thankyou. Where is this documented? Hi Stephen, Please have a look at document RIPE-185 "European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ir-policies-procedures.html#toc75 [..] Technical Details Current assignment guidelines require a network to be multihomed for an AS number to be assigned. When a registry applies for an ASN, it needs to submit the routing policy of the Autonomous System that requires an AS number. ... 7.2.Returning an AS Number If an oranisation has an AS number that is no longer in use, it can be returned to the public pool of AS numbers by sending a message to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>, it can then be re-assigned to another autonomous system by the RIPE NCC. [..] By sending out messages asking if an AS number is in use (multihomed) or not the RIPE NCC makes sure this policy is applied. As mentioned in my previous message if it turns out that an AS number appears not to be in use after being assigned for almost a year (or more) the LIR should consider to return it. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o * > Hi, * > * > "Stephen Burley" <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net> writes: * > * Hi * > * I am a bit concerned about an email we recieved threatening the * > * revokation of an assigned AS number if it did not appear to be used. It * > * concerns me for a number of reasons. * > * * > * 1. Our customer has had problems with other providers and there own * network, * > * which has postponed the intended use of the AS for quite a few month, * all * > * due to things out of their and our control. * > * > This can always happen and we do ask several times for information before * > mentioning the option of returning an assigned AS number which appears not * > to be in use. The first time we ask is 6 months after the assignment. * > * > * 2. If you do revoke it then the customer may suddenly get things fixed * and * > * start using the AS as intended but in the meantime you assign it to * another * > * customer and the problems ensue. If you do not assign it why whould you * ask * > * for it back? * > * > If you do not use it why should you keep it? :) * > Our intention is to make sure AS numbers are used and not wasted. * > * > We send several reminders asking about the status and this process is * > taking a couple of months. If you are not able to start using the AS * > number after a long time we ask you to return it. To date the RIPE NCC * > Hostmasters could always find an agreement with the LIRs to return AS * > numbers that appeared not to be in use. * > * > We do reassign returned AS numbers *not* straight away but after a certain * > time period ("sleeping time") and ... * > * > * 3. Just because an AS does not appear in the looking glass does not * mean * > * that its not being used in situation which does not mean it does not * need to * > * be announced at any looking glass. * > * > ... we do not only use the Looiking Glass to find the number of peers. We * look * > back in time at least on several days using 'asiuse' - publicly know as * the * > RIS Database, from New Projects. * > * > * Please could you clarify this situation? * > * * > * Regards * > * Stephen Burley * > * UUNET EMEA Hostmaster * > * SB855-RIPE * > * * > * > * > Regards, * > * > Sabrina Wilmot * > * > -- * > * > o------------------------------------------o * > | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina(a)ripe.net | * > | Registration Services Operations Manager | * > | | * > | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | * > | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | * > o------------------------------------------o * > * > *

5 4