- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: Resent: Allocating a LIR an IP block per use
by Yuval Shchory 06 Dec '99

06 Dec '99

Sorry to get everyone back to the course (well, the course I want to go through.... :-) - but my questions was not whether or not a small ISP / content provider should implement BGP. The issue is that currently I can't take part of my PI, which I divide into small PAs for my customers, and use it for PIs for my customers. However, I would like to have my own PI specially intended for fragmentation to PIs, not to PAs. The reason to difrentiate is that the net-work is diferent here. The maintenance is diferent (I don't really advertise the addresses using my AS, though I'm a transient for these addresses). If I'll have a larger block, it would be easier to maintain, easier to troubleshoot. Yes, I do understand that the issue these days is conservation. And yes, it is understood that our last allocation is not 80% assigned. However, we cannot take our last /16 and create smaller CIDRs! We think it is wise to diferentiate our BGP customers from our regular customers - and the differ would they be - the better. The best differentiation is provide the BGP customers with a diferent block. I'm sorry to add here the business issues, but I believe that a large chunk of the LIRs are ISPs, so some of them might find it interesting. Regards, --- Yuval Shchory Projects Manager NetVision's Corporate Technical Support Department eMail: syuval(a)netvision.net.il interFAX: 03-5480255 ---

1 0

Resent: Allocating a LIR an IP block per use
by Yuval Shchory 06 Dec '99

06 Dec '99

Hi all, We would like to request another IP block from RIPE, regardless of our current allocation (which we use for our day-to-day assignments to customers), in order to assign from this block only to customers using BGP. I would not want to assign BGP customers from our regular blocks, as it would create a need to subnet the BGP advertisements on these blocks. We would like to have a block pre-intended for such fragmentation. However, as far as I recall RIPE's procedure, one can request another IP allocation only after a certain percentage (50% AFAIR) of his allocation has been assigned. So - am I the only person thinking this is the correct way to do that? Is it possible to request a block for such usage, regardless of the current allocation's usage? Regards, --- Yuval Shchory Projects Manager NetVision's Corporate Technical Support Department eMail: syuval(a)netvision.net.il interFAX: 03-5480255 ---

5 5

RE: Resent: Allocating a LIR an IP block per use
by Yuval Shchory 06 Dec '99

06 Dec '99

Yes. That is exactly what I would like to do, but the problem is that I can't receive new allocation from RIPE unless my current is used to its half. What I would like to do is receive a new, large PI for BGP use, so it won't be mixed with my aggregateable /16s. I will be more than happy to hear from RIPE how this can be done. It might be that all I have to do is send a 141 with a remark - FOR BGP CUSTS and that would be it, but I'm not really sure. Regards, --- Yuval Shchory Projects Manager NetVision's Corporate Technical Support Department eMail: syuval(a)netvision.net.il interFAX: 03-5480255 --- > -----Original Message----- > From: Jules D Salter [mailto:jules@vas-net.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 2:46 PM > To: Yuval Shchory; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: Resent: Allocating a LIR an IP block per use > > > Yuval, > > You could apply for PI (Provider Independant) address space. > But you would still need to fill out a RIPE-141 outlining how > you intend to use the address space. The other problem with PI > space, is that a lot of the backbones don't like routing it unless > you have a fairly large aggregate. > > The issues are raised in http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html > > Joolsie > > Yuval Shchory wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We would like to request another IP block from RIPE, > regardless of our > > current allocation (which we use for our day-to-day assignments to > > customers), in order to assign from this block only to > customers using BGP. > > I would not want to assign BGP customers from our regular > blocks, as it > > would create a need to subnet the BGP advertisements on > these blocks. We > > would like to have a block pre-intended for such fragmentation. > > > > However, as far as I recall RIPE's procedure, one can > request another IP > > allocation only after a certain percentage (50% AFAIR) of > his allocation has > > been assigned. > > > > So - am I the only person thinking this is the correct way > to do that? Is it > > possible to request a block for such usage, regardless of > the current > > allocation's usage? > > > > Regards, > > > > --- > > Yuval Shchory > > Projects Manager > > NetVision's Corporate Technical Support Department > > eMail: syuval(a)netvision.net.il > > interFAX: 03-5480255 > > --- >

3 2

Top 100 Maintainers List 19991123
by RIPE Database Administration 23 Nov '99

23 Nov '99

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Bhabuta, Denesh 23 Nov '99

23 Nov '99

> You also don't take notice of the fact that RIPE have stated > that they do > not want us to update the RIPE database with our Dial-Up IPs, > the majority > of what you continually show in your little table... I will agree with Sam's sentiments/comments here... RIPE indeed did say that and preferred to receive static verification tables once a week... well it was the case when I worked at Demon... Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta, AMISM European Internet Services Group Level (3) Communications Limited +44-20-7864-0498 ; denesh.bhabuta(a)level3.com

4 4

IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Nurani Nimpuno 19 Nov '99

19 Nov '99

Dear LIR-WG, We would like to hear your opinions on the issue of IP assignments for virtual webhosting. The current policy is rather old and in the meantime a lot of things have changed; most importantly the market for webhosting products, as well as the development of the HTTP protocol and related software. TERMINOLOGY Before we begin, however, we would like to address the issue of terminology for this subject. The term 'virtual webhosting' is being used a lot but it is often not clear in which way it should be interpreted. We suggest the following terminology: Server: A physical computer with an operating system installed on it. This could be UNIX, Windows, Mac, or something else. The webserver runs as an application on this OS. Webserver: An application program that accepts connections in order to service requests by sending back responses. That is, a piece of software that runs on a physical server. Examples of webservers are Apache, IIS, and Stronghold. User agent / Client: The client that initiates a request. These are often browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end-user tools. Hostname: A nameserver entry that resolves to an IP address. This could be an A or a CNAME record. Virtual host: A hostname resolving to the IP address of a server, the webserver of which handles several hostnames. IP-based virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, one IP address for each hostname. Namebased virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, all hostnames resolve to the same IP address. OUR SUGGESTION The RIPE NCC has followed the deployment of HTTP 1.1 closely over the past year. According to recent surveys, a vast majority of clients now support HTTP 1.1 (namebased HTTP requests). It is our belief that the majority of webserver applications support namebased webhosting as well. In recent years we have seen a boom in the registration of second-level domains. This has led to a great demand for webhosting services. Using one IP address per domain uses an enormous amount of IP addresses. With HTTP 1.1 this is no longer necessary. We therefore suggest to promote namebased webhosting and to change the current policy so that IP addresses can no longer be assigned for IP-based webhosting. Please provide us with any feedback or comments you might have. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno (Registration Services Manager) and Simon Skals (Hostmaster) RIPE NCC

17 17

Re: abusive changes of person handles (protect your maintainer!)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 19 Nov '99

19 Nov '99

Hi Joao! >There are two issues here: >- The use of very weak protection methods (NONE and MAIL-FROM) (see *). wrt the "see *": I think they do have a point in principle. In reality (for many individuals, I suppose :-) it's still more staright-forward to fake a mail-from header than reverse-engineer a crypted password string in itself. However, given the fact that many operatinal environments these days require mail to be shipped multi-hop, the risk of disclosing the (clear text) password is greater than we might want to believe... >Would the community see this change in behaviour as a good thing? Definitely! Wilfried.

2 1

abusive changes of person handles (protect your maintainer!)
by Petra Zeidler 19 Nov '99

19 Nov '99

Hi, peruse the latest case of abusive changes of person handles: person: Thomas Heubach address: FICK-AG - Pornoproductions address: Nymphomanen Str. 37 address: D-80335 Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 190 666666 nic-hdl: TH849 remarks: Wer Frauen liebt und Fotzen leckt, remarks: der mag auch HARIBOKONFEKT. Ich liebe remarks: Frauen und lecke Fotzen, doch Haribo remarks: find ich zum kotzen. mnt-by: DTAG-NIC changed: dbaier(a)www-service.de 19991109 source: RIPE person: Andreas Schoberth address: FICK-AG address: D-81925 Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 190 332 332 nic-hdl: AS48-RIPE remarks: Wenn Dir ein Maedchen remarks: - pudelnackt - remarks: von hinten an die Nudel packt, remarks: wenn Dir also gutes widerfaehrt, remarks: dann ist das einen Asbach-Uralt wert. mnt-by: FR-NIC-MNT changed: chef(a)nic.de 19991109 source: RIPE (those two probably being affected due to being the contacts for viag.de) Judging from an earlier case, the handles weren't password protected, some "nice and intelligent person" changed the contents and then slapped a protected maintainer on it. I'm pretty sure the above is not unique; the case I know of also slandered the subject of the handle and got a XLINK-MNT put on (which it still keeps, together with a remark that Xlink doesn't appreciate abuse of our maintainer). Apart from the obvious (auth MAIL FROM and NONE ought to be considered deprecated, and every maintainer should have its password(s)), can we please find the perpetrators and scare them a bit? ;-) Oh, and also DTAG-NIC and FR-NIC-MNT will probably want to change the mnt-by: to ECRC-MNT. kind regards, Petra Zeidler -- i.A. Petra Zeidler, Neukundenanschluss Xlink Internet Service GmbH [X] zeidler(a)xlink.net [X] Tel: 0721/9652-220 [X] Fax: 0721/9652-209 [X] Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Rotert. Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161. [X] Auftraege erledigen wir zu unseren Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen.

2 1

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

Dear Poul-Henning, =>Something along the lines of why static IP for the applicants web hosting =>product/services is absolutely necessary. => =>> start judging what =>> are "good" and "bad" applications ? => =>RIPE do that anyway! = =But we can add that quite a number of LIR's seem unaware of this =practice: = =You can find the entire list of offenders at: = = http://stat.cybercity.dk/ripe = =And a "Bad guys" list at: = = http://stat.cybercity.dk/ripe/bad.html = =#IPs LIR =----------------------- =11944 se.swipnet = = [ ... ] you seem to imply that the number of host addresses you see (from within address blocks that happen to have "inconsistencies" in the DB objects) is directly related to the number of addresses assigned for virtual applications? I'm lost... Wilfried.

3 2

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Williams, Toby 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

In a sales environment, it would certainly be easier to enforce namebased virtual web-hosting if everyone had to play by the same rules. Currently being conciencous and telling a prospect they can't have the IP addresses for virtual web hosting gets the response "well ISP xxx will provide me with them". The importance of enforcing name-based hosting is high, but I also get the feeling the amount of wasted address space elsewhere on the Internet (/16s allocated to big institutions years ago that are firewalled other than a handful of /24s?) should be a higher priority - not saying that RIPE did these allocations of course! Toby > -----Original Message----- > From: Havard.Eidnes(a)runit.sintef.no > [mailto:Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no] > Sent: 17 November 1999 17:10 > To: Sam.Bradford(a)demon.net > Cc: cor(a)xs4all.net; nurani(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > > Although the amount of clients connecting with 1.0 may be very > > little in most cases, it does still happen. We have customers > > specifically state that they do not want to set up http 1.1 > > because at the end of the day, some people will not be able to > > view their (and/or their clients') web sites, which is fair > > enough. > > I hope this doesn't mean they don't deply http 1.1-capable > servers, but that they don't actually utilize the virtual hosting > functionality based on the Host: header in http 1.1? > > Not doing 1.1 server-side would be extremely bad for the http 1.1 > clients and the general health of the network. > > By the way, anyone want to take bets about when the next craze about > "always on" network service becomes significantly widespread, and > how that will affect IP address space consumption? ;-) (No, I'm not > an IPv6 advocate, if that's what you're thinking, just putting this > all in some larger perspective.) > > > - Håvard >

3 2