- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: RIPE 34 LIR WG Draft Agenda
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 20 Sep '99

20 Sep '99

Hi James, => > "Status: LIR-ALLOCATED" Considered Useful => > ========================================= => => Sounds useful, as long as it's only effect is adding nodes to => the maintainer tree. = =I see its main use as adding nodes to the maintainer tree and also as a way of =documenting use of address space without actually making an assignment. I was using a similar approach/technique for a while to document *revoked* address assignments in the RIPE-DB. My reasoning was that the whole block of addresses being ALLOCATED by the RIR to a particular LIR is *by definition* ALLOCATED Px, unless it is ASSIGNED Px at any particular point in time. From my point of view, any address space from that block *not* being explicitely listed in an inetnum: object with status: ASSIGNED Px, has to be treated as ALLOCATED Px. >Without specific "ASSIGNED" objects below a "LIR-ALLOCATED" object the address >space would still be treated as unassigned as if the new object wasn't there >at all. Exactly. However I was forced (and only partly convinced!) by the hostmasters and Paula C. to stop using that approach. If I recall correctly, there is some interaction with (undocumented?) hostmaster tools/procedures getting things mixed up. (I also mangaged to mix up a human hostmaster...) I understand that more up-to-date SW releases even preclude anyone but the NCC staff from using status: ALLOCTED xx. I don't think this is/was the right direction to go, but that's as it stands right now - to my knowledge. Do we want to re-visit that in either LIR or DB later this week? 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 __________________________________________________________________________

1 0

We think it may be interesting...
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 18 Sep '99

18 Sep '99

Hi, we have just made available some more operational information online for your convenience. Please see http://www.ripe.net/db/mrtg/whois.html Hope you find it useful. It uses the great mrtg tool. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE DB Group manager RIPE NCC

2 1

RE: New RIPE NCC reverse delegation procedure
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 Sep '99

17 Sep '99

Hi Lee! >---> It will be mandatory that a registry ID is included in all > requests for reverse delegation, as is currently the case for requests > to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>. We will require that all requests come from > an LIR receiving service (i.e. paying for services), and > that the requester is one of the registry contact people/ > contact role-account. > > + resource efficient. We only deal with people who are experienced > in the reverse delegation procedure and aware of the RIPE NCC > and RIPE DB procedures in general -> minimal time explaining > procedure and general registry system concepts. Currently > we spend much time dealing with inexperienced end-users who will > set up only one or a few zones and therefore do not spend the > time to become knowledgable concerning the procedures. > > + fair to paying members. We do not spend time guiding people who > do not contribute to the costs. My 1st reaction: this requires a bit more thinking - the people (individuals) running the address assignment business are not necessarily the same persons which deal with DNS. Maybe they should, or the DNs folks should be added to the LIR contacts just for that purpose, but this requires a reality check and procedure review, I suppose? - between the lines, also, this states that users of address space obtained from LIRs which have been closed for one reason or another cannot get RevDNS services set up and/or changed - unless you provide some loopholes. I don't have an opinion about good/bad, it's just an observation. > - for requests involving large numbers of zones lots of > domain objects will be needed. We'll lessen this by > making possible a shorthand domain object like this: > > domain: x-y.w.z.in-addr.arpa > > This will result in all reverse zones x-y being delegated > (upon success), and x-y domain objects being entered in > the database. This option will only be possible for > corresponding address space which is occupied by a single > inetnum object, to reduce the possibilty of misuse/mistakes. Uhh, ohh, this might be a non-starter (the single inetnum object, not the idea in itself). I like the intent, but again this requires a review of other procedures (or customs) in some places. 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 2

RIPE 34 LIR WG Draft Agenda
by hph＠sys.sol.no 17 Sep '99

17 Sep '99

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] Dear Working Group Member ! I have put together a first draft of the agenda for the upcoming working group meeting. Please read it carefully and make suggestions for additions and changes. Remember: this is YOUR forum, please send me YOUR suggestions on what you want us to spend time on at the meeting in Amsterdam, Looking forward to meet you there, Hans Petter Holen LIR WG Chair ---------------------------------------------------- RIPE 34 - Local IR Working Group first draft Agenda 1. Admin scribe participant list charter mailinglists 2. Agenda 3. Introduction of the new Registration Services manager, Nurani Nimpuno. meet the RIPE NCC hostmasters 4. RIPE 33 minutes actions 5. Reports from the Registries RIPE APNIC 6. The RIPE community POLICY making process by Mirjam Discussion: is this well understood and 7. ICANN - ASO Current status, Further work Definition of the selection procedure for the address council selection 8. AOB

5 6

RE: RIPE Hostmasters visiting LIRs
by Abbey Shasore 17 Sep '99

17 Sep '99

Hi Chaps, Now come along...it is *great* idea for RIPE to get to know what we do and how we do it. However, I am far from convinced that this is the way to do it! Of course there will be lobbying, of course there will be LIRs that will make an impression, and of course there is a real risk of compromising RIPE neutrality. Also, how would this be funded? Ok for the big(ger) guys, but how about us less big guys? Personally, I would like to have you guys get to know us better and so on - but I am not sure we can afford it! More thought required me thinks... Abbey Shasore A4U Net - Alpha Internet -----Original Message----- From: Sam Critchley [mailto:samc@UU.NET] Sent: 16 September 1999 16:01 To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RIPE Hostmasters visiting LIRs Hello, Recently a few colleagues and I have been talking about the way we interact with the people in the RIPE NCC when dealing with customer assignments (and some other matters). One of the things we thought could be beneficial is if Hostmasters had more experience of the kind of issues we in the ISP community face on a day-to-day basis. We thought it might be a good idea if some of the Hostmasters were able to visit an ISP and see how they work, meet the people they deal with and perhaps work alongside them for a period of time. With this in mind we first thought of inviting individual people to come and visit us, or perhaps addressing the NCC asking if this were possible. However, we soon realised that this would have neutrality implications, and that it could be damaging both to the RIPE NCC reputation and to ours, and that for this reason it was unlikely to be accepted by them. In the last week or so I've been in touch with people in several other LIRs here in the Netherlands on an informal basis, and we all seem to agree that, were visits made to multiple registries by multiple members of the staff of the NCC, then this would have fewer neutrality implications. It seems like there are several registries who would be happy to offer help with this if it has a potential benefit for all LIRs. I realise that this has been discussed in various forums before, but feel personally that we are now able to remove many of the barriers which might prevent it happening. Do other LIRs feel that this could be beneficial to everyone in the RIPE community? What do RIPE NCC staff themselves think about it? What kind of restraints do people feel should be placed upon any such scheme? How should it be organised? Should it be discussed at a meeting? Looking forward to any comments on the lir-wg mailing-list, Best wishes, Sam

3 2

COMMENT: "status: LIR-ALLOCATED"
by Berislav Todorovic 16 Sep '99

16 Sep '99

Hello, I'd back the proposal for the "status: LIR-ALLOCATED" attribute, with the possibility to restrict the use of that status to the international LIRs only (or allocations higher or equal to /16) - to avoid possible problems and abuses from small LIRs - intentional or unintentional. Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI(a)etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3218-350 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: RIPE Hostmasters visiting LIRs
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 16 Sep '99

16 Sep '99

>Of course we could also try to add a new policy which says that >if a LIR after three warnings from RIPE havn't gotten their >act together they get a RIPE visit, and the full bill for >that visit (the "RIPE-MIB": RIPE-Men In Black :-) Yeah, you fail 3 times to answer a phone call within 30 seconds on Sunday afternoon, and voila, you've got the tax hounds on your neck :-) :-) :-) Reality check, gentlemen! From my point of view there is milage in persuing this idea, with the boundary condition that the goal of this whole exercise is to improve the mutual understanding and information flow between the LIRs and RIR's representatives (i mean: strategically, not for a *particular* LIR or particular HM (or a very small set of both)!). Paying visits to each other is maybe *one* way of achieving that goal. There might be others, quite as well. Let's hear the NCC's point of view on this general idea. Then let's try to sort out the particular goals, boundary conditions, and - eventually - the funding issues. How's that sound? My 2 Groschen (0.02 ATS = 0.00145346 EUR) for X-NCC-RegID: at.aconet Wilfried.

1 0

RIPE Hostmasters visiting LIRs
by Sam Critchley 16 Sep '99

16 Sep '99

Hello, Recently a few colleagues and I have been talking about the way we interact with the people in the RIPE NCC when dealing with customer assignments (and some other matters). One of the things we thought could be beneficial is if Hostmasters had more experience of the kind of issues we in the ISP community face on a day-to-day basis. We thought it might be a good idea if some of the Hostmasters were able to visit an ISP and see how they work, meet the people they deal with and perhaps work alongside them for a period of time. With this in mind we first thought of inviting individual people to come and visit us, or perhaps addressing the NCC asking if this were possible. However, we soon realised that this would have neutrality implications, and that it could be damaging both to the RIPE NCC reputation and to ours, and that for this reason it was unlikely to be accepted by them. In the last week or so I've been in touch with people in several other LIRs here in the Netherlands on an informal basis, and we all seem to agree that, were visits made to multiple registries by multiple members of the staff of the NCC, then this would have fewer neutrality implications. It seems like there are several registries who would be happy to offer help with this if it has a potential benefit for all LIRs. I realise that this has been discussed in various forums before, but feel personally that we are now able to remove many of the barriers which might prevent it happening. Do other LIRs feel that this could be beneficial to everyone in the RIPE community? What do RIPE NCC staff themselves think about it? What kind of restraints do people feel should be placed upon any such scheme? How should it be organised? Should it be discussed at a meeting? Looking forward to any comments on the lir-wg mailing-list, Best wishes, Sam

7 11

Re: RIPE handles delay
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 15 Sep '99

15 Sep '99

Dear Vesa! => response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose => while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get => processed. = =This tactful comment probably means a turn to the right direction. =But I wish it was said loudly and clearly, maybe even as a complete =change in DB usage policy. We pay for address registration services, =please take the domain (non-rev-dns-related) objects elsewhere. To statr with I'd like to assure you that we are (sometimes painfully) aware of the issue(s) you'r point fingers at. Quite a bit of things have been achived already to allow us to move in the right direction in due time: Technically: the NCC already has implemented the WG-approved refer: attribute to allow referrals to "remote" autoritative servers for domain: objects. This is already being use by (a few) TLD registries, others are working towards that end. Logistics: CENTR was formed within the framework of the RIPE NCC quite a while ago to deal with TLD activites (or DNS issues in general). CENTR has meanwhile been incoprorated as a legal entity of it's own, and moved office to the UK. RIPE discussions: we have already (recently) started to discuss (both informally amongst the WG chairs, as well as within the various WG meetings) the issues with co-locating different registries within a single database environment (i.e. the IP-Registry, Routing-Registry, DNS-Registry). These issues are (amongst others) . authority for data and responsibility for data quality . access patterns ie.e. (updates vs. consumers, privacy, copyright) . providing operational resources As an aside, you are correct in stating that the NCC's main objective rests with the IP-Address, including reverseDNS and Routing Registry activites. But, at the same time, the creation of and support for CENTR and the DNS-related activites was agreed by the RIPE community and there was (still is?) a contract in place between the NCC and CENTR to have CENTR contribute equitably to the NCC's operational costs. I'm looking forward to continue this thread of discussion (within the DB-WG framework or somewhere else) as well as to corrections and amendments by the RIPE community and WG chairs, and/or from NCC staff. Best regards, and thanks for bringing this up (again) for consideration! Wilfried Woeber DataBase WG chair. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 __________________________________________________________________________

1 0

RIPE handles delay
by Alfredo E. Cotroneo 14 Sep '99

14 Sep '99

Hi, For the last ten days or so we have noticed that replies for a new contact handle to auto-dbm(a)ripe.net is taking much more than the usual 2-5 minutes as it used to be in the good old times ;-) Although we request only a few handles per month, a relly from RIPE takes now 10-20 hrs or more in some cases, regardless of the time (day or night, week or week-end) when the request is sent out. I have heard of some kind of explanation related to SW/HW upgrades at RIPE and huge requests of handles being queued by some provider a few days ago, however, can someone at RIPE tell if the situation is going to be solved soon and when ? Unfortunately this is causing at least an additional 1+ day delay in the registration of new domains at the Italian NIC, as IT-NIC requests that a handle exists for each contact before the domain registration form is submitted. Of course any comment from IT-NIC on how they can modify their internal procedures to minimize such delays (i.e. by IT-NIC requesting a new handle to RIPE directly) is also welcome. Thanks. -- Alfredo E. Cotroneo PO Box 11028, 20110, Milano, Italy Phone: +39-335-214-614 (try first) / +39-02-266-6971 email: alfredo(a)nexus.org fax: +39-02-706-38151

4 3