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

Draft minutes from lir-wg at RIPE 41
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Sep '02

10 Sep '02

Dear WG, The RIPE NCC have just finished the draft minutes and published them on the RIPE web site under: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r41-minutes.html RIPE Meeting: 41 Working Group: LIR Status: 1st Draft Revision Number: 1 Please mail comments/suggestions on: content to the Chair of the working group. format to webmaster(a)ripe.net. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Draft Minutes of the LIR Working Group session of the RIPE 41 Meeting 14-18 January 2002, at the Krasnapolsky Hotel, Amsterdam, Netherlands. ----------------------------------- Chair: James Aldridge Vice-Chair: Denesh Bhabuta Scribe: Jeannette Decades ----------------------------------- Agenda: A. Admin - scribe, participant list, charter, mailing-lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 39+40 (minutes & actions) D. Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters E. RIPE 185 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") F. Change of policy for Portable address space G. RFC 2050 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") revision H. Report from The Address Council Y. Any Other Business Z. Open Microphone. Denesh Bhabuta (DB): Hans Petter Holen couldn't make it. So the meeting will have to do with James Aldridge and myself, Denesh Bhabuta. We want to set a ground rule: One of the complaints from the past was that the LIR WG has been fed with too many discussions. Discussions are supposed to happen on the mailing lists and policy decisions are to be made at the meeting. James Aldridge (JA): The agenda was sent out yesterday to the mailing list. ======================== A: Scribe. ======================== DB: Could we have a non-RIPE staff scribe please? No reactions. A RIPE staff member is scribe. ======================== B: Agenda bashing ======================== JA: Are there any additional items for the agenda? No reactions. ======================== C: RIPE 39 and RIPE 40 minutes and actions. ======================== JA: The minutes are on the website since November we think. Actions as it appears on the website, few of them are very old actions from RIPE 35, 36 and 38. Most of these had something happened since the last RIPE meeting. A lot of it is ongoing work. The 38.5 LIR-Allocated, my original suggestion, is now LIR-Partitioned and some email is sent out this week. It is now in the test database and will go live real soon now. Working group chair roles is working fine since Hans Petter Holen is not here and I am. Policy action undivided address space action on the working group to participate on the RFC 2050 is in progress. ======================= D: Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters ======================== Presentation of Sabrina Waschke can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations/lir-rsreport /index.html Some additional comments from Sabrina on the slides: RS staffing. We have now 5 teams. Three new hostmasters are starting in January. At this point we hope to be fully staffed and can cope with the workload. And as you can see, you have probably seen it before, we also work on future growth. (Sabrina shows her big belly). Number of requests in hostmaster(a)ripe.net. In 2000, we see a peak but now the graph shows a steady growth. We introduced last year the two-day-turnaround time for ongoing tickets. That meant that when your request was picked up out of the wait queue, a hostmaster dealt with it, you replied, you had to wait for 48 hours before you got a response from us again. That means that correctly filled out requests get a faster approval. The special lir-help(a)ripe.net mailbox is not holding up normal requests anymore. We still apply the 'approve but educate' approach. Even not perfect requests got approved and we gave tips and information for improvements to get a faster approval next time. Wait queue. The last 6 months the wait queue is low. The last 2 months it is a bit higher, due to Dutch weather (sickness) and Christmas holidays. Total LIRs per region. The growth is slowing down. We don't expect too many new LIRs. IPv4 Allocation distribution. LIRs that are working all over Europe have the country code EU. Policy development. A message was sent out to the LIR WG concerning the /20 criteria. At RIPE 40 the decision about the Assignment Window (AW) for infrastructure for LIRs was decided upon and it was introduced in December 2001. Already 250 objects have been created in the database with the INFRA-AW extension. Not all of them are valid. Some LIRs have tried to use this to clean up the database. RS services are working on a document that tries to cover everything concerning mergers, take-overs and closures of LIRs. IPv6. The assignments for Exchange Points have been introduced in August 2001. E: RIPE 185 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") ======================== Nurani Nimpuno (NN): We encourage everyone to look at the document and to give comments. We're speaking about the new policy draft document for IPv4 policies. The document has been out on the web for 5 months and there was very little activity. The couple of comments that have been made have been published on the LIR WG mailing list. JA: I'm not sure how much more we can do. There hasn't been very much discussion on the mailing list about this. My opinion is this, more profitable work is done on the mailing list. Then we can come to the RIPE meetings for final decisions, rather than having long drawn-out arguments and conversations here. But are there any brief comments from anyone here? Because we're actually ahead of schedule and I'm trying to think of anything to fit in a bit of time. I encourage everyone to join the mailing list and to participate in the revision process. The email address is ripe-185bis(a)ripe.net. ======================== F: Change of policy for Portable address space ======================== JA: The question is if people are happy with the new policy? No reaction. DB: Are people aware of the policy change? It's about the requirements of a /22 immediate or the previously use of a /22 to become a new LIR. This was voted on at the last RIPE meeting. Any thoughts? Are people finding it difficult with their customers who want to be mainly multi-homed? Comments? No? We will continue this discussion on the mailing list. ======================== G: RFC 2050 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") revision ======================== JA: The agenda on the web was wrong about this one. This should be the RFC 2050, the global Internet Registries guidelines, which is being revised and prolong sides the European policy. Again joining the mailing list for participation and discussion is appreciated. Are there any comments for now? Mark Mcfadden (mcf(a)uwm.edu): I'll give a brief update. There is a mailing list available through ARIN for the global RFC 2050 discussion. Part of that working group, there are also some milestones. We're a little bit behind on those because of some things that happened at the end of last year. But we can start see there again is some movement forward. So I encourage anyone who is interested in the discussion of the revision of RFC 2050 to make sure that you're part of that mailing list. Mailing list address: rfc2050-WG(a)arin.net JA: Any questions, comments, anything? Comment from ?: I think that there are more hostmasters here are than LIRs. ======================== H: Report from The Address Council ======================== Barbara Roseman gave a report from the Address Council. Slides can be found at: ======================== Y: Any Other Business ======================== UUNET: There has been a discussion on the mailing list about PI - multihomed issues. The question raised if multi-homed is always needed or not. We have customers that need multi-homing. But not all providers will route small address blocks. JA: I don't know if there's anything that the LIR WG can do to force providers to route any particular address space. I would be inclined, rather than a policy change our of LIRs, have the Routing WG work on this issue and come up with a 'best practice or something'. DB: We can talkabout 'best practice' but there are commercial realities behind this as well. A lot of ISPs have customer requirements to fulfill. You're not the only person who has spoken about this issue with us and it has mainly come up since the last policy change. This was about the minimum requirement of a /22 before we can get address space. Are there any suggestions? UUNET: As far as I can see, the company that I work for, which is UUNET, is thinking about(at least the hostmaster is, which I am not) having a policy where you accept other provider's PA space instead of trying to go the PI route. This is current thinking, this is no decision, but the problem is we don't have a consistent policy across our AS and we'd like to implement one. Before we implement it we'd like to have consistent policy within RIPE. The problem is that whenever we get the discussion, everybody starts jumping and shouting saying: "Multi-homing". Then the discussion dies because multi-homing is the issue. But before we solve that problem we would like to have something implemented that is workable right now instead of waiting until we solve the mult-homing discussion, which seems to be without a logical solution. DB: My suggestion is that we take this up with the Routing WG as well and maybe we can make this into an action item from this meeting. UUNET: I didn't raise it in the Routing WG yesterday, thinking that was more appropriate to the LIR WG. I guess there were some initiatives in the community, but they all died. So I wonder if there's anybody else that feels like this, something we need to resolve rather sooner than later. DB: Any other comments? No reaction. UUNET: I guess there's too much RIPE NCC people here as previously discussed. DB: We'll set it as an action point. JA: This is the first new action point from this RIPE meeting. Any other questions, comments? I think this is about it for this morning. Please participate on the mailing lists. It does make it so much easier if there's been discussion before RIPE meetings. We can then reach final decisions at these WG-meetings.

2 1

IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 29 Apr '02

29 Apr '02

Dear all, below find a proposal for a policy enabling the assignment of blocks of IPv6 addresses to Internet DNS root servers in the RIPE region. I would like to use the opportunity to request from the chairman of the LIR WG to include this point for discussion in the WG meeting next week. Of course, discussion in the mailing list is welcome. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC **************** This proposal requests the adoption of a special IPv6 assignment policy for Internet DNS root servers. It does not apply to any other infrastructure. Specifically, this is not a request for a generic "special infrastructure" IPv6 assignment policy. --- IPv6 address assignments to Internet DNS root servers in the RIPE region Internet DNS root servers are particularly critical elements of the Internet's infrastructure. They need to be operated in a neutral and professional manner which will not impose any artificial or unnecessary barriers for access to their designated services. DNS resolvers and resolving name servers need to be pre-configured with the network addresses of the root name servers. This makes these addresses special and not easy to change. Hence this special policy. Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the minimum allocation to LIRs valid at the time of the root server assignment. The assigned prefix is only for root server operations and support functions related directly to the operations, such as monitoring, statistics, etc., and is bound to the root server service itself. It is not associated with the organization/s that operate the root server at a particular point in time and these organizations should not use the address space to provide any services not related to the root server. Should the operational responsibility for a DNS root server move to a new organization, the IPv6 address space associated with the server will also move to the new organization. The old and the new organizations must update the registration information with the RIPE NCC. If the new location of the root name server is outside the RIPE region, the address space must be returned to the RIPE NCC and a new assignment must be requested from the appropriate RIR. If a root server stops operating within the RIPE region, the address space will be returned to the RIPE NCC and marked as "reserved" for a suitably long period of time. *******************

11 29

Re: Transferring InterNIC space from ARIN Database to other RIR databases
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

>At 11:08 25/04/2002 +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: >>> o After the move of the authority for the data, what information will >>> the ARIN database return when queried via whois? A pointer to the >>> RIPE NCC (as happens now for the larger RIPE address blocks), or a >>> "slave" copy of of the data from the RIPE database? >> >>A pointer seems to be the more favoured approach right now. > >A pointer would be the right thing to do, IMO. There are already several >address blocks from 192/8 which are registered in the RIPE database but are >listed as unassigned in ARIN's database. This creates the appearance of a >conflict and will probably confuse some people. > >philip >-- After (during?) the various migrations, we should aim for a system where every RIR whois server returns "the same" info about allocated and assigned addresses. The _authoritative_ whois should give the full story, all the other 3(*) should return a pointer reference. Pending an analysis of what the potential load could be, I'd even suggets to implement a referral mechanism similar to the support for domain referrals in the RIPE DB Software. I'd like to get feedback form the LIR community about the usefulness of that approach. We could then, if supported, take it to the DB-WG for review. *) this includes the LACNIC whois. Wilfried.

2 1

Transferring InterNIC space from ARIN Database to other RIR databases
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

Dear all, Sometime ago we started a thread about distributing address space issued prior to the existence of the RIRs, which is currently registered at the ARIN database (imported from the InterNIC's database), to the RIR that now operates in the region where the address space is registered as used. Doing this would simplify processes such as modifying the name servers for in-addr.arpa for those addresses, changing contact information, etc as the user will issue requests for change to the RIR in their region, the one with which they will normally be more familiar. Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC are now ready to proceed with this. There are some aspects, however, where community input is required and I would like to ask you to comment on the proposal below. Note: the examples at the bottom are just examples. We do not want to imply there is anything wrong with the objects mentioned. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC -------------------------------------------- Proposed procedure for migration of legacy objects from ARIN Database When moving data from the ARIN database into the RIPE Database the situation is not, unfortunately, always without conflicts. Some data that is in the ARIN database also has an entry in the RIPE database. While the ARIN database is the one which contains the authoritative information for the set of name servers used in in-addr.arpa resolution for the addresses in question (the in-addr.arpa zone file is generated from that data), sometimes the administrative contacts seem to be more up to date in the RIPE database. Below are a set of proposals for actions when transferring the data: I. inetnum objects 1. There are several types of conflicts with the data in the RIPE Database: 1.1 Exact matches with RIPE networks (4325) *Proposal: to override data in the RIPE Database with ARIN's. If the object in the RIPE database has a "changed" date more recent than the object in the ARIN database, contact information from the RIPE database is kept and the nameservers are the ones in the ARIN database. 1.2 ARIN network contains a RIPE network(s) (169) 1.2.1. ARIN's allocation, while multiple assignments are registered in the RIPE Database *Proposal: to keep RIPE's and ARIN's data 1.2.2. Minor Mismatch *Proposal: to override data in the RIPE Database with ARIN's 1.3 ARIN network is contained in a RIPE network (3060) *Proposal: to keep ARIN's data and delete RIPE network 1.4. Objects in the ARIN database only *Proposal: to put ARIN's data in the RIPE Database 2. Protection of the transferred inetnums *Proposal: To create a mntner object for each ARIN's 'coordinator'. Syntax could be: mntner: <coord hic hdl>-MNT mnt-by: <coord hic hdl>-MNT auth: MAIL-FROM <coord e-mail address> ... Then we protect inetnums 'owned' by the coordinator with this maintainer. Should be the same level of security as currently at ARIN. Note: it could be different if the POC is merged/replaced by existing RIPE person object (see further discussion). II. POC objects 1. Try to match POCs from ARIN DB to the existing person objects in the RIPE DB (762) The implication is that we use the person's e-mail address as authorization (see proposal above) * Proposal: to contact all affected persons in advance and have a more clear picture before the transfer. Questions to ask: - Do both records represent the same person? - Would (s)he like to merge the contact data, in what manner? After an answer to these questions is received: - Discuss protection issue (existing maintainer, coordinator's maintainer, auth). Needs human work. 2. Protection of the transferred POCs * Proposal: to add mnt-by referencing a respective coordinator's maintainer. ---------------- Examples I.1.2.1 inetnum: 130.242.0.0 - 130.243.255.255 netname: SUNETREGAB-RIPE descr: European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC descr: These addresses have been further assigned descr: to European users. Contact information can descr: be found in the RIPE database at whois.ripe.net country: NL admin-c: RIPE-NCC-ARIN rev-srv: sunic.sunet.se rev-srv: falun.dns.swip.net rev-srv: ns.ripe.net status: ALLOCATION changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 20000329 source: ARIN ... inetnum: 130.242.43.0 - 130.242.43.255 netname: SE-TEKNISKAMUSEET descr: Tekniska Museet country: SE admin-c: HALI1-RIPE tech-c: HALI1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: SUNET-MNT changed: fredrik(a)sunet.se 19981022 source: RIPE inetnum: 130.242.48.0 - 130.242.48.255 netname: SE-ARMEMUSEUM descr: Statens Forsvarshistoriska Museer country: SE admin-c: BOMI1-RIPE tech-c: LEPE1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: SUNET-MNT changed: fredrik(a)sunet.se 19981022 source: RIPE ... I.1.2.2 inetnum: 131.117.0.0 - 131.117.128.255 netname: ZUERI descr: Municipality of Zuerich descr: Wilhelmstr. 10 descr: Zurich, 8021 descr: CH country: CH admin-c: BM153-ARIN status: ASSIGNMENT changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 19980824 source: ARIN inetnum: 131.117.0.0 - 131.117.127.255 netname: ZUERI-NET descr: Municipality of Zuerich descr: Zuerich, Switzerland country: CH admin-c: BM16-RIPE tech-c: BM16-RIPE changed: huber(a)switch.ch 19950412 source: RIPE I.1.3 inetnum: 130.138.0.0 - 130.140.255.255 netname: PHILIPS descr: Philips C&P/NBS descr: Eindhoven country: NL admin-c: HS6189-RIPE tech-c: HS6189-RIPE notify: H.Sanders(a)mpn.cp.philips.com changed: geertj(a)ripe.net 19940106 changed: H.Sanders(a)mpn.cp.philips.com 19960131 changed: ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net 19990706 changed: ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net 20000225 source: RIPE inetnum: 130.138.0.0 - 130.138.255.255 netname: PHILIPS-SERI-1 descr: Philips Components BV descr: Building BC136 descr: Hurkesestraat 9 descr: 5600 MD Eindhoven descr: THE NETHERLANDS country: NL admin-c: OK6-ARIN status: REASSIGNMENT changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 19930413 source: ARIN II.1 person: Antonio_Blasco Bonito address: Rodinet S.a.s. address: Via Cavour 6 address: I-54033 Carrara address: Italy phone: +39 0585 779435 fax-no: +39 0585 757385 e-mail: Antonio-Blasco.Bonito(a)rodinet.com nic-hdl: ABB2 changed: blasco(a)rodinet.com 19990310 source: RIPE person: A. Blasco Bonito address: GARR-NIS address: c/o CNR-Istituto CNUCE address: via Santa Maria 36 phone: +39 50 593246 fax-no: +39 50 904052 e-mail: bonito(a)NIS.GARR.IT nic-hdl: ABB2-ARIN changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 19931201 source: ARIN

6 6

An increase in Merger tickets
by Dominic Spratley 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

Dear Colleagues, In our previous email we felt it was important to notify you that specific issues had arisen that had resulted in an increase in the current response time length and that we were working to address these. We would like to take this opportunity to explain in greater detail one of these issues. When we compare the first quarter of this year with the same quarter last year we see that the number of hostmaster tickets/requests relating to Mergers and Closures has risen from nearly 5 tickets per month to over 27 tickets per month (an increase of more than 500%). Mergers, closures and takeovers of LIRs are notably complex for a variety of reasons. The process of merging, closing or taking over another LIR involves the transfer of IP addresses and AS numbers. This is necessary to ensure that Internet resources are not lost and that they get registered properly in the RIPE Database. Often, the new or remaining LIR is not aware of all the addresses involved in the process. This is specifically the case with 'old' LIRs. It can also mean that part of the address space could be returned if, through a merger or takeover, an LIR receives more address space than needed. In many cases contact persons of the LIR closing or being taken over hold all of the knowledge and are no longer reachable. This could lead to wastage of Internet resources as the addresses are very difficult to trace. All of this uses a lot of resources. We realise that those LIRs merging, closing or being taken over already have address space to add to their own and their customers' networks, whereas other LIRs that send requests to the RIPE NCC are in need of address space. We would like to give priority to the latter, but for the reasons listed above it is not always possible to have a lower response time. The process must be carried out separately for every LIR involved and having to communicate with each LIR's contacts can often add to the delay. A new draft procedure document titled "Mergers, Acquisitions, Takeovers and Closures of LIRs" has been drafted and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/policies/draft-docume… We hope that this will provide better guidance for the LIRs who are involved in this process. Regards, Dominic Spratley, RIPE NCC

1 0

FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by David Kessens 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

For your information: You might want to read the latest iteration of the 'IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy' draft before the actual discussion of the draft during the lir wg session at the RIPE meeting next week. David K. --- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> ----- X-Delivered-For: <david(a)iprg.nokia.com> X-mProtect: <200204251156> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection X-Authentication-Warning: data.staff.apnic.net: majordom set sender to owner-global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net using -f To: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:54:02 -0400 From: Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) A revised version of the IPv6 address document is now available. It incorporates feedback from the recent RIPE, APNIC and ARIN discussions, as well as many wording cleanups. It is believed that the document is consisent with the discussions held so far and the consensus calls of APNIC and ARIN. The document can be found at: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy ftp://ftp.cs.duke.edu/pub/narten/ietf/global-ipv6-assign-2002-04-25.txt Thomas - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2

Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
by Tanja Heimes 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

Hi All, this ist the response of the RIPE Robot to one of our customers after he tried to create a reverse delegation object in the RIPE DB: "The RIPE NCC no longer accepts requests for creation and ammendments of reverse delegations which do not include the registry ID of an existing Local Internet Registry. If you are not a representative of an LIR, you should contact the LIR who assigned you the address space, or your upstream provider..." The customers owns his Provider Independent IP address space and is not able to create this object as he needs to state a reg-id in the request. Now this customers (and others in the past) claim that they have to apply to there upstream provider in order that this ISP creates the object. The customer certainly has is own maintainer. My question now: Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record. 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

5 6

Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

Hi Joao! >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:44:23 +0200 (CEST) >From: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao(a)ripe.net> >To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> >CC: lir-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects > >Dear Wilfried, thanks for the very useful explanations! It turns out that we were discussing a non-issue - mostly. Sorry for getting started again, yesterday, it was the style of the 1st answer... >I wholeheartedly agree with your arguments: > >There *IS* indeed a mandate on the RIPE NCC to provide services to the >community at large. > > [ snip ] > > ... Those are usually either LIRs or have their >address space registered at the ARIN Database (and yes this becomes an >issue to discuss in view of the pending transfer of "legacy" space from >ARIN to the RIPE NCC). Where do you propose to discuss those things? LIR / DB / somewhere else? For scheduling reasons, I do have a preference for DB, but it's your decision. >I hope to have filled you in with this message Indeed, thanks again. >Regards, >joao Cheers, Wilfried.

1 0

Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
by James Aldridge 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 02:51:02PM -0400, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > I agree completely with Tanja. PI space should not be assigned to End-Users > > if they cannot be responsible for it, including the reverse delegation. > > I feel tempted to shorten that sentence further to > > "PI space should not be assigned to End-Users" > > but I am afraid this isn't too workable. How about simply "PI space should not be assigned." (if not to an end-user, then to whom?) ;-) However, you request PI space from a LIR. Why not request in-addr.arpa delegation from this same LIR at the same time? Once the delegation is in place you are free to change provider as much as you like but there is no reason to change the DNS setup (after all, you've got yourself PI address space and your master nameserver's in that space, isn't it?) James

1 0

Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Hi Dominic, >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:00:28 +0200 >To: Tanja Heimes <theimes(a)de.cw.net> >From: Dominic Spratley <dominic(a)ripe.net> >Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects >CC: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > >Hi Tanja, > >There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly >from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet >Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by >LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users. From _quite_ a distance, I tend to agree, in principle, but. Looking at the details, you are (from my point of view) over-simplifying the situation. E.g. there are probably quite a few holders of "traditional" address space which have a considerably higher clue-level that some LIRs. And, there _IS_ (or is this was?) a mandate for the NCC to provide services or functions for the community at large (just have a look at the annual activity descriptions which get agreed in the RIPE Community and ultimately get approved by the members once a year). Not all of these activities have to be channeled through (the wait queue for) a particular LIR. But my biggest point of concern here is that this is another instance where pretty *fundamental* operational (and policy) changes get implemented unilaterally by the NCC (should I say hostmaster group here?), without discussion, approval, and a look at the consequences and *NOT EVEN* an information being distributed those *AFFECTED*: the LIR community. We are left to find out by chance. > >LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than >End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come >from them. > >Yours sincerely, > > >Dominic Spratley, > >R.S. Assistant Manager, >RIPE NCC In my books this is very bad management style! Respectfully, Wilfried Woeber, (at.aconet) _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 6