- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[lir-wg]Hostmaster Robot
by Tanja Heimes 26 Oct '02

26 Oct '02

Hello, when sending mails and IP requests to hostmaster(a)ripe.net I am receiving either strange responses from the robot - for instance that totals are missing (but they are not missing), or that the format is not correct. Additionally I am getting a second response that the IP request has not been recognized as an IP request - but it is. When correcting something in the request and resending the mail with the NCC# in the subject I am not receiving a response anymore from the Robot. When checking in the Web for the TT status there is stated that RIPE expects a reply. But RIPE got a reply. And in other cases I even do not get a NCC# Nr. at all. Does somebody have made similar experiences the last two days? Regards, Tanja -- Tanja Heimes E-Mail Tanja.Heimes(a)de.cw.com IP Engineer Comnet: 749 9374 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 2

Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform
by Daniel Karrenberg 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

[ This message states my personal opinion and *not* the opinion of the RIPE NCC. I realise that NCC staff commenting on controversial"political" issues in a personal capacity can be considered inappropriate. However I feel I have to speak up just *because* I personally invested a lot of energy into the RIR processes and also into the gestation of ICANN, the ASO and its processes. In other words: I think I earned the right and *have the obligation* to speak up.] Hans Petter, I just read your messages analysing the legal prose. While this is good work and highlights quite some symptoms, it does not analyse the disease. A much more clear symptom of the desease is in the latest amendment to the ICANN-USG agreement http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/amend5_09192002.htm "... ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the following resources ... Work collaboratively on a global and local level to pursue formal legal agreements with the RIRs, and to achieve stable relationships that allow them to continue their technical work, while incorporating their policy-making activities into the ICANN process. ..." This clearly shows that ICANN does not want to work the way the RIRs are successfully working. ICANN has no respect for, and maybe still does not understand our long established, well working, bottom-up, transparent way of making policies. There are more symptoms of this in all areas of ICANN activity. A good example is the current "AXFR conflict" with some ccTLDs. They script for these problems is: - ICANN staff drafts or changes policies for reasons only apparent to ICANN staff and, possibly, the US Government in some cases. - ICANN board ratifies changes without discussion. THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS OTHER THAN ON PAPER. - ICANN staff applies policy - 'victims' are surprised since they did not hear anything via what they thought of as their part of the "ICANN Process". - ICANN staff says: "This is policy ratified by the board, please use the 'ICANN Process' to change it again. Meanwhile just comply." THIS MEANS THAT THOSE WHO DEPEND ON ICANN FOR SOMETHING ARE SCREWED. In the particular 'AXFR conflictt' I refer to above, ICANN has deliberately jeopradised the stability of the DNS of some pretty large ccTLDs over an extended period of time. I have lost all confidence in ICANN as an organisation, the ICANN process and many of the people involved, both board and staff. I have the strong suspicion that I am not the only one. *This* is the disease: Loss of confidence. It cannot be addressed with adding paper "Core Values" and even more paper process while maintaining the level of substance at a minimum. I personally think the RIRs should *now* walk away from ICANN for better or worse. This means we have to do our home work well: - Create a process for global policy coordination. We have thes substance of it: the ASO. We just need a legal shell outside of ICANN and -maybe- some minor adaptions to the substance. - Create a process for 'process appeal', i.e. where someone can go if the global policy coordination does not follow its own rules. Maybe professional arbitrators can be used. Certainly not another politically loaded body. - Make sure that those who look at ICANN for influcene into the process find their needs sufficiently addressed by the current regional processes plus the "new" global process. I suspect that this is largely a matter of educating people. Hans Petter, imagine you had invested the time it took to analyse the ICANN generated legal prose into drafting this. I think it would have been a much better investment. We should have a very open discussion in this working group on how to proceed with address policy coordination on the global level. If the RIPE NCC, and the other RIRs, should decide to walk away from ICANN they need our full support. The RIPE NCC also needs help with doing the work outlined above together with the other RIRs. Respectfully Daniel

9 26

[lir-wg]Draft Minutes from LIR WG at RIPE 43
by Hans Petter Holen 19 Oct '02

19 Oct '02

Dear WG, The Draft Minutes from LIR WG at RIPE 43 are now available on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r43-minutes.html Please read trough and submit comments to the list or to me before November 19th. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen LIR-Wg Chair

1 0

[lir-wg]Ripe ftp server ?
by D'HERTOG Pieterjan 18 Oct '02

18 Oct '02

Is there a problem with the ftp server of ripe ? I get a connection refused... Pieterjan --- Pieterjan d'Hertog, Senior Network Engineer Belgacom Skynet NV/SA, 2 Rue Carli, B-1140 Brussels Phone +3227061311 Fax +3227061150 http://www.skynet.be PGP fingerprint: D9AB CD6A 2A78 73CC 68BF 0AFA 8FB3 5821 E4BB 9D2E

2 1

Goodbye All
by Stephen Burley 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Hi Just a quick note to say thankyou and bye. My job at the struggling telecoms giant Worldcom has come to an end, what they will do not i do not know but then thats Worldcoms approach to everything i suppose. Anyway thankyou for the enjoyable times i have spent talking to you all and for enriching my life. I have had a great time being part of this ever changing community and i wish you all the best for the future. I do not know where i go from here but then maybe its time to change my path in life, recently i have found my self unable to keep abreast of most of the issues so my lack of mails will probably not be missed. I will miss all of you who knew me and no doubt some of you will breath a sigh of relief. Anyway i wish the community all the success in the world and please do not loose sight of the RIPE ideals that this community was built on. Hope our paths cross again some day. Regards, Stephen Burley Former UUNET EMEA Hostmaster.

1 0

assignment policy
by pop3.tjantik.dk 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Hey everybody We have a customer who has build a rather large ethernet MAN network in there local area (potentialy 50.000 privat customers), they have chosen us to provide the internet capacity for there solution. Now the issue of Fixed IP addresses comes up. The solution they have designed for there network, requires a /30 for each customes that requests a fixed IP address. Is this "allowed" in current RIPE policies ? Nicolaj Ottsen

3 2

RE: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses
by Daniel N. Rasmussen 11 Oct '02

11 Oct '02

Hi Peter, > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" > in for example > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the latter. Eg. 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 now 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > Peter B. Juul, > Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE) Regards, Daniel Rasmussen dk.uunet

9 10

Mailing List Software Migration
by RIPE NCC WebMaster 10 Oct '02

10 Oct '02

Dear Mailing List Subscriber, The RIPE NCC will change its mailing list software from "majordomo" to "mailman" on 17 October 2002. The new mailing list software will give users more options to manage their subscriptions to the RIPE and RIPE NCC mailing lists. Additionally, this change is being made to ensure stability and continuity of mailing list management and archiving. The new mailing list software will give users a number of options using a web interface: - Subscribing and Unsubscribing to mailing lists - Reviewing general information about the mailing lists - Viewing subscriptions to mailing lists - Temporarily disabling mail delivery - Choosing between regular and digests of mailing list postings - Acknowledgements to postings The web interface will be located at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/ As well as using the web interface, mailing list users can manage their subscription and retrieve information by using an e-mail client. Further details on this are available at the above URL. Please note that if mailing list users are already subscribed to one or more mailing lists, they do not have to take any action. Messages can still be sent to the regular mailing lists addresses and subscriptions will not have to be re-confirmed. If you have any questions about this migration, please feel free to send an e-mail to <webmaster(a)ripe.net> Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Mailing List Moderation

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 10 Oct '02

10 Oct '02

>In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP >communication between a number of institutions. That is an internetwork, often called an internet. The Internet Protocol (IP) was invented specifically for this purpose. >The logical choice for >this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what >1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved >networks and thus unavailable to this project. Those people are right. The logical choice for IP addresses on an internet is to use addresses from the RIR. It doesn't matter whether this internet is connected to the Internet or not. >Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number >of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in >use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? Because all of the organizations in your internet will also be connected to the Internet as well. When the 82/8 space starts to be used on the Internet, each organization will have to deal with routing and/or reachability issues in their internal networks. In order to avoid this kind of mess, the IETF set up the IANA so that organizations building TCP/IP networks could register for globally unique IP addresses. Even though the mechanisms have changed since then (CIDR and the RIRs) the basic principle still holds. There is no requirement that an organization must allow everyone to access their network in order to justify globally registered IP space. It is better for you to register the number of addresses that you actually need rather than hijack the entire 82/8 range. -- Michael Dillon

1 0

ICANN Reform
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Oct '02

10 Oct '02

Dear lir-wg, On the topic if the ICANN reform http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm With reference to the RIR joint statement of June 20th http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-icann-statement-20020620.html and the response from the ICANN reform committee: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/update-16sep02.htm and the discussion at the RIPE meeting I would like to ask the lir-wg members to study theese statements and actively participate in the ICANN reform process. Either by: 1) Discussion on this list, and with clear advice to your AC members on how you wish to advice us to act. or 2) submitting your oppinion directly to the ERC http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg chair

5 10