- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE backlog
by Hank Nussbacher 09 May '00

09 May '00

I submitted an ASN request to hostmaster in April 27 and got back: >Please note that currently our working wait queue is long and you >might have to wait up to a week for an initial response from a hostmaster. >We are sorry for this delay and we are doing our best to bring the response >times back to normal as soon as possible. We are now well past one week. I think the RIPE NCC should at the very least be sending out notices to its customers in the hold queue that they are still backlogged. Are others waiting just as long? -Hank

5 5

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE H ostmaster
by adrian.pauling＠bt.com 09 May '00

09 May '00

Nominet ( the .uk Domain Registrars ) now retain legal advisors due to the trademark / trading name implications with Domain Names. I'm not sure about other ccTLD Registrars. If RIPE-NCC were to perform trademark/trading name checks, they would have to employ a Trademark Attorney or such specialist legal expert. This would take time to recruit and would increase costs and extend the LIR set-up time. However, it is probably inappropriate for RIPE-NCC to do this. Whilst I sympathise with your position, I'd recommend no legal significance be attached to an LIR's name, and would suggest that your concerns about confusion between the uk.firstnetonlinexxxx is addressed via consultation with Trademark Attorneys (they do exist :-)). Regards, Adrian F Pauling :-)NEL2C Internet Protocol Manager acd Information Systems Engineering Technical Architecture AFP1-RIPE / AFP-ARIN / AFP25-InterNIC * adrian.pauling(a)bt.com * +44 19 2685 1992 / +44 78 0290 4877 British Telecommunications plc Registered Office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no 1800000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Lloyd Smith [SMTP:greg@askfol.com] > Sent: 09 May 2000 10:03 > To: lir-wg > Subject: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE > Hostmaster > > The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject > of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, > which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling > that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis > that > the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the > general public as to which company is which and that since our company was > an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as > well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis > that > their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, > and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and > reputation. > > > Greg Lloyd Smith > uk.firstnetonline > > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > Good morning Greg, > > > [uk.firstnetonline writes] > "FirstNET Online PLC" <webmaster(a)gb-host.com> writes: > * Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter.... What you > could > * have done, was determined whether or not RIPE needed (yet) another LIR, > and > * base that decision on the same factors I was presented with in > Greece... > * That is.. Could they have obtained their IP addresses from their up > line > * connectivity provider, and was there another member using the name > FirstNET > * or something similar... These were the questions I was asked when I > applied > * to RIPE. I am very distressed by the fact that about a week ago there > was > * no other member of RIPE using our name and now there is and (most > * important), there is no connection between our companies. > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > Yes we did all that. Its standard procedure as written in ripe-160. > > [uk.firstnetonline writes] > * I would point out for the record that of the 20 companies I own two of > them > * (FirstNET Online Management Limited and FirstNET Online PLC), and that > only > * three of them are purporting to be ISP's and therefore the change of 20 > of > * them asking you for membership would be limited to the company about > which > * we are complaining and our own 2 companies. > * > * I would therefore ask that we be allowed to appeal to someone within > the > * RIPE organisation to have their membership revoked or repealed since it > * should not have been granted in the first place. I was vetted and I > suspect > * that if there had been a company in Greece using the name Firstnet, you > * would have rejected my application. Why was their application > approved? > > [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] > If your argument is that FirstNet Services should not have been > allowed to become a Local IR because they partly use the same name as > you then you have no agreement according to current policy. We cannot > really stop anyone from becoming a LIR, only recommend them to go > elsewhere for their address space. > > But if you feel strongly about it why don't you write to the LIR > working group mailing list, <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>, and state your case > there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us. > > > >

1 0

Fw: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable)
by Nick Naylor 09 May '00

09 May '00

Misdirected email - I think! ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Baumann <Peter.Baumann(a)commcare.ch> To: <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable) Hello I'm away from 9.5.00 until 12.5.00. Please try to reach me from the 15.5.00. Peter Baumann Commcare AG

1 0

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
by mike.norris＠heanet.ie 09 May '00

09 May '00

> > The following is an extract from a series of communications on the > > subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another > > LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing > > member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the > > addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question > > trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public > > as to which company is which and that since our company was an > > existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country > > as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on > > the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and > > confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an > > existing member's company and reputation. > > Hm, this seems like a strange request. > > The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the > company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's > ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be > concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR > status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that > name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue > should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I > assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK. > > Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but > thus just seemed too obvious... I agree with Håvard. RIPE NCC has no authority to adjudicate on entitlement to trading names; that's a matter for the parties concerned and perhaps the Companies Office in the UK. Regards. Mike

3 2

Re: Minimum allocation size (Not Reachable)
by Peter Baumann 09 May '00

09 May '00

Hello I'm away from 9.5.00 until 12.5.00. Please try to reach me from the 15.5.00. Peter Baumann Commcare AG

1 0

We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
by Greg Lloyd Smith 09 May '00

09 May '00

The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation. Greg Lloyd Smith uk.firstnetonline [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Good morning Greg, [uk.firstnetonline writes] "FirstNET Online PLC" <webmaster(a)gb-host.com> writes: * Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter.... What you could * have done, was determined whether or not RIPE needed (yet) another LIR, and * base that decision on the same factors I was presented with in Greece... * That is.. Could they have obtained their IP addresses from their up line * connectivity provider, and was there another member using the name FirstNET * or something similar... These were the questions I was asked when I applied * to RIPE. I am very distressed by the fact that about a week ago there was * no other member of RIPE using our name and now there is and (most * important), there is no connection between our companies. [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Yes we did all that. Its standard procedure as written in ripe-160. [uk.firstnetonline writes] * I would point out for the record that of the 20 companies I own two of them * (FirstNET Online Management Limited and FirstNET Online PLC), and that only * three of them are purporting to be ISP's and therefore the change of 20 of * them asking you for membership would be limited to the company about which * we are complaining and our own 2 companies. * * I would therefore ask that we be allowed to appeal to someone within the * RIPE organisation to have their membership revoked or repealed since it * should not have been granted in the first place. I was vetted and I suspect * that if there had been a company in Greece using the name Firstnet, you * would have rejected my application. Why was their application approved? [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] If your argument is that FirstNet Services should not have been allowed to become a Local IR because they partly use the same name as you then you have no agreement according to current policy. We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR, only recommend them to go elsewhere for their address space. But if you feel strongly about it why don't you write to the LIR working group mailing list, <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>, and state your case there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us.

4 3

Minimum allocation size
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has been monitoring the consumption rates of the initial /19 allocations given to new members over the last couple of years. The results clearly show that a significant amount of these allocations are far from fully used. The majority of these allocations are in fact not used more than 50%. Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns. We will however present the community with clear results and statistics in the lir-wg at the coming RIPE meeting in Budapest for further discussion regarding this proposed policy change. We are looking forward to hearing the community's input on this matter in a constructive and fruitful discussion next week. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

4 4

RE: Minimum allocation size
by Matthew Robinson 09 May '00

09 May '00

How many providers filter less than a /19? Can we not ask them to allow /20's from 'new' allocations? -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Burley [mailto:stephenb@uk.uu.net] Sent: 09 May 2000 9:59 To: lucks(a)indigo.ie Cc: Nurani Nimpuno; lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: Minimum allocation size This is a very good point, the only way round this is to have a mid way transit point so 2 companies would share an announcment of a /19 i can not see very many people agreeing to that. Maybe if 2 the registries have a common upstream provider the provider would agree to aggregate, but even then this causes problems when changing providers. Do you have any more concrete proposals than the basic statement?

1 0

IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear lir-wg, At the end of 1999 we raised the issue of IP Assignment to virtual web-hosting and we believe that it now is high time to conclude this discussion. We received very useful feedback from the community and we also brought the discussion further to the other RIRs, ARIN and APNIC. This has now also been discussed in their respective regions. In the RIPE community there was tremendously strong endorsement for name-based web-hosting although there were also several arguments against a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting. There were technical arguments put forward, naming examples where IP-based web-hosting is necessary in order to allow certain technologies or applications such as SSL for example, but there were also voices raised against the hassle of upgrading old hard- and software. The RIPE NCC is in favour of a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting when technically feasible. However, due to some of the voices raised against this, we believe an accurate conclusion at this moment would be to not change any policy at this point, but to further strongly discourage IP-based web-hosting. We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would therefore like to request the community to consider making it mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based web-hosting (eg. SSL). We wish to add this to the agenda at the upcoming RIPE meeting for further discussion and welcome any input the community may have on this matter. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

5 4

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 09 May '00

09 May '00

Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than onme site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to cout the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetinmgs from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Sascha Luck <lucks@indigo To: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> .ie> cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@ ripe.net 08.05.00 18:36 Please respond to lucks Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno: > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > web-hosting (eg. SSL). I'd go one step further and make it mandatory to use HTTP 1.1 based hosting for _upgraded_ installations. I don't know how to enforce that, however. Otherwise, I can live with that proposal. Best regards, s. -- Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill mailto: lucks(a)indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2

1 0