- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: IP addresses question
by Patrick M. van Eijk 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

Dear Jean-Francois, As the largest ISDN dial-in provider for internet-customers in the Netherlands we have established a network (270 B-channels) with IP address pools wich are dynamically assigned to the BRI/PRI ports. We'll be happy to advice you (as a local-registry for ripe we also see the need for maintaining the current IP space !). Lets have a contact early next year (due to hollidays). Greetings Patrick M. van Eijk General Manager Network Operations & Services Planet Internet Holding B.V. E-mail : pvaneijk(a)pi.net --- On Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:51 +0100 (MET) Jean-Francois Stenuit <jef(a)donald.interpac.be> wrote: >Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by mailhost.pi.net (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id TAA01558; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 19:21:36 +0100 >Received: by ncc.ripe.net > id AA08214 (5.65a/NCC-2.30); Wed, 20 Dec 1995 18:00:08 +0100 >Received: from donald.interpac.be by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP > id AA08206 (5.65a/NCC-2.30); Wed, 20 Dec 1995 18:00:03 +0100 >Received: from donald (jef@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by donald.interpac.be (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id RAA27224 for <local-ir(a)ripe.net>; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:53 +0100 (MET) >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:51 +0100 (MET) >From: Jean-Francois Stenuit <jef(a)donald.interpac.be> >X-Sender: jef@donald >To: local-ir(a)ripe.net >Subject: IP addresses question >Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.90.951220174843.27069A@donald> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Length: 1337 > >Hello, > >We are currently fixing our routing policy for clients using dialup-ISDN >connections and are facing some problems. > >Theorically (Cisco point of vue), avery network should have a different >number. That means we need 3 network ranges (our network, ISDN network >and client network). > >As IP address space is becoming quite scarce these days, we don't want to >use registered addresses for the ISDN network (it doesn't have to be >visible from the Internet). > >We have three solutions : >- use RFC1597 addresses, but there is no reverse DNS for such addresses > (problem when doing a traceroute) >- use some kind of unnumbered scheme, but it's difficult to manage on > Cisco routers with multiple dial-in BRI. >- use a registered addresses anyway ... > >Any advice, experience ? > >-- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >/Jean-Francois "Jef" Stenuit | Interpac Belgium NV/SA | // Amiga \ >\Internet administrator | 350/358 Avenue Louise Box 11 | \\// fanatic / >/Phone (32)(2) 646-6000 | B-1050 Brussels | \/ \ >\Fax (32)(2) 640-3638 | Belgium | & SparcStation / >/Email stenuit(a)interpac.be | | addict ... \ ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Patrick M. van Eijk E-mail: pvaneijk(a)pi.net Date: 21-12-95 Time: 10:24:57 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: IP addresses question
by John Murray 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

> As IP address space is becoming quite scarce these days, we don't want to > use registered addresses for the ISDN network (it doesn't have to be > visible from the Internet). > > We have three solutions : > - use RFC1597 addresses, but there is no reverse DNS for such addresses > (problem when doing a traceroute) > - use some kind of unnumbered scheme, but it's difficult to manage on > Cisco routers with multiple dial-in BRI. > - use a registered addresses anyway ... > > Any advice, experience ? We use dynamic unnumbered links with a router from Securicor 3net (are you stuck with Cisco?) and it works *very* well. Cheers John

1 0

Final: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry
by Max Gutberlet 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

Ok, I don't want this thread to become a neverending story, therefore a final short asumption from the previous days: 1. Would RIPE please write down the recomendations from Daniel Karenberg including open budget, some kind of democracy and fair pricing and make it a formal RIPE recomendation ? 2. The price everybody is willing to pay for a Name-Server Entry seems to be about US$ 100 setup-fee and US$ 50 a year. TLDs should keep this in mind when setting up their pricing. 3. There is and should be NO general price-regulation for TLDs. Thanks for your participation and help. Regards Max Gutberlet P.S.: Daniel Karrenberg asked to remove this task from the local-ir list. I dont know of any other list applicable for such discussions, therefore I'm willing to setup one myself. Please mail your answers directly to me. -- ~\\|//~ -(o o)- +--------------------oOOOo--(_)--oOOOo---------------------+ | _ _ _ | | _ __ ___| |_| || | _ _ ___ _ _ | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| || |_| | | |/ _ \| | | | | | | | | | __/ |_|__ _| |_| | (_) | |_| | | | |_| |_|\___|\__| |_| \__, |\___/ \__,_| | | |___/ | | http://www.net4you.co.at/ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ | Max Gutberlet Address: NET4YOU | | NetMaster Net4You Ringmauergasse 8| | Tel.: +43-4242-257367 A-9500 Villach | | Fax.: +43-4242-257368 Carinthia | | email: M.Gutberlet(a)net4you.co.a Austria | +----------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

RE: IP addresses question
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

Hi Patrick! >We'll be happy to advice you (as a local-registry for ripe we also see the need for >maintaining the current IP space !). I think that's a great offer! But I'd expect that your approach would be valuable input for a broader audience. At least I'd certainly be very interested to learn about the details and the restrictions - if these exist. I'd like to ask you (and propse to the Local-IR group) to either summarize to the list and/or to give a summary presentation at the Local-IR WG meeting in January. Comments? Thanks, Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry
by Paolo Bevilacqua 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

On Dec 19, 20:38, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Subject: Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry > ... > For you it is 10 minutes but for 80% of the people it is about 30 minutes > and often more. "Hello, I'd like a domain name." "Ok, what is your > primary and secondary DNS?" "My what!!??" explain, explain, explain, > "But all I want is tada.co.cc! I don't have a Unix system or Windows NT. > I am dialing into crISP and I don't want to be user(a)crISP.net" > > and on and on and on. > > And if you are not polite and helpful, you get a lawyers letter for > "denial of service" and "monopolization". > > So NICs have to *average* out the time spent. Not all users are as > up to date as you are. > I don't think that a delegated TLD registry should necessarely cope with such issues. The InterNIC (and RIPE) model is exemplar. They have clear, published rules, a standard procedure and a ticketing system. They point the misinformed user to books or other info about the DNS. Fax submissions and answers are considered, but email has to be the standard. Phone support should not be given, except for emergencies about pollutioned zones or similar. This should keep the human costs to the minimum. > Lastly, the entry in root does have a processing effect. If you are a > popular site in the world, and everyone wants to get to www.tada.co.cc > then the root DNS will have to service those requests. Now add up > a few thousand DNS entries just like yours and the Unix system needs > a memory upgrade. After 3 years it needs a complete overhaul. Who > pays for the new hardware? > > So when doing you calculations, figure on 30 minutes and the > deprecation costs of a Unix system. > > Incidentally, in Israel, where we started charging for domains back > in October 1994 (before everyone else realized it was necessary) > we set the fee at $50 - one-time and have stuck to it so far > without a problem. > This order of magnitude (under 100$) and a smaller annual fee are perfectly reasonable. May be it's time for a recommandation, formal or informal from the ultimate namespace authorities ? /pab -- Paolo Bevilacqua UniNet IP Services

3 3

subscribe
by root 21 Dec '95

21 Dec '95

subscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Perftech d.o.o., Bled i.a. Root (Uros Rezar) Tel: +386 (0)64 741-561 Fax: +386 (0)64 741-024 e-Mail: root(a)perftech.si ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

IP addresses question
by Jean-Francois Stenuit 20 Dec '95

20 Dec '95

Hello, We are currently fixing our routing policy for clients using dialup-ISDN connections and are facing some problems. Theorically (Cisco point of vue), avery network should have a different number. That means we need 3 network ranges (our network, ISDN network and client network). As IP address space is becoming quite scarce these days, we don't want to use registered addresses for the ISDN network (it doesn't have to be visible from the Internet). We have three solutions : - use RFC1597 addresses, but there is no reverse DNS for such addresses (problem when doing a traceroute) - use some kind of unnumbered scheme, but it's difficult to manage on Cisco routers with multiple dial-in BRI. - use a registered addresses anyway ... Any advice, experience ? -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Jean-Francois "Jef" Stenuit | Interpac Belgium NV/SA | // Amiga \ \Internet administrator | 350/358 Avenue Louise Box 11 | \\// fanatic / /Phone (32)(2) 646-6000 | B-1050 Brussels | \/ \ \Fax (32)(2) 640-3638 | Belgium | & SparcStation / /Email stenuit(a)interpac.be | | addict ... \ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1 0

Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry
by afink＠ping.ch 20 Dec '95

20 Dec '95

>-------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- >No doubt ! My simple question: does the above justify a yearly fee of US$ >390 ? > They are simply not capable to do their work in a correct amount of time. In my opinion the price should be around 50-100$. The worst thing is that they charge more for works which take less time. Registering a nameserver is more expensive than registering a host (which might change more frequently). But we have to stick with that until their contract terminates. I strongly reccomend to find someone else who does that job until that time. Yust as a remark. Pinging their primary nameserver for germany ns.nic.de 193.196.32.1, returns 48% packet loss. Dont tell me that this is fast. If this server is slow, whole germany is slow... Andreas Fink --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ping Net GmbH, Dorfstrasse 21, 8902 Urdorf, Switzerland afink(a)ping.ch http://www.ping.ch/ Tel: 01-7358333 Fax: 01-7358334 Administration: admin(a)ping.ch Tech Support: support(a)ping.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ping Net Sarl, World Trade Cent er, Av. Gratta Paille 2, 1000 Lausanne 30, Switzerland. Tel: 021-6411339 Fax: 021-6411310 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry
by Hank Nussbacher 20 Dec '95

20 Dec '95

On Tue, 19 Dec 95 20:28:26 -0500 you said: >I don't think, a TLD should handle direct user request. Does DE-NIC ? Anyway >the have a application form ready to download for anybody who asks. And >believe me, it is the standard answer, I've heard it ten times at least. > >The customer handling should be done by the ISP the customer is connected >to. And I think this is the current modus operandi anyway. Downloading assumes connectivity. You obviously have never been doing NIC work. We get requests from law firms and other totally non-connected companies to "reserve" a domain name before their competitor gets it. So downloading doesn't always work. >> 1994 (before everyone else realized it was necessary) we set the fee at >$50 - >> one-time and have stuck to it so far without a problem. > >Does this cover your costs ? We believe so - with no profit. >| Max Gutberlet Address: NET4YOU | Hank

1 0

Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry
by Max Gutberlet 20 Dec '95

20 Dec '95

-------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- > Date: Tuesday, 19-Dec-95 08:38 PM > > From: Hank Nussbacher \ Internet: (hank(a)taunivm.tau.ac.il) > To: Max Gutberlet \ Internet: (mgutberlet(a)server.net4you. co.at) > To: Local Internet Registries in Europe \ Internet: (local-ir@ripe. net) > > Subject: Re: Question Regarding Behaviour Of German Top Level Registry > > For you it is 10 minutes but for 80% of the people it is about 30 minutes and > often more. "Hello, I'd like a domain name." "Ok, what is your primary and > secondary DNS?" "My what!!??" explain, explain, explain, "But all I want is > tada.co.cc! I don't have a Unix system or Windows NT. I am dialing into crISP > and I don't want to be user(a)crISP.net" > > and on and on and on. > I don't think, a TLD should handle direct user request. Does DE-NIC ? Anyway the have a application form ready to download for anybody who asks. And believe me, it is the standard answer, I've heard it ten times at least. The customer handling should be done by the ISP the customer is connected to. And I think this is the current modus operandi anyway. > And if you are not polite and helpful, you get a lawyers letter for "denial of > service" and "monopolization". > Thought of that too. [..some lines deleted..] > Lastly, the entry in root does have a processing effect. If you are a popular > site in the world, and everyone wants to get to www.tada.co.cc then the root > DNS will have to service those requests. Now add up a few thousand DNS entries > just like yours and the Unix system needs a memory upgrade. After 3 years it > needs a complete overhaul. Who pays for the new hardware? > So you propose a traffic oriented chargin system ? [..some lines deleted..] Just talked to my favorite Domain Admin here in Austria, he said that traffic has to be considered too, but taking erveything in mind, I'm still far far away from the price they demanded. > Incidentally, in Israel, where we started charging for domains back in October > 1994 (before everyone else realized it was necessary) we set the fee at $50 - > one-time and have stuck to it so far without a problem. Does this cover your costs ? -------- REPLY, End of original message -------- -- ~\\|//~ -(o o)- +--------------------oOOOo--(_)--oOOOo---------------------+ | _ _ _ | | _ __ ___| |_| || | _ _ ___ _ _ | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| || |_| | | |/ _ \| | | | | | | | | | __/ |_|__ _| |_| | (_) | |_| | | | |_| |_|\___|\__| |_| \__, |\___/ \__,_| | | |___/ | | http://www.net4you.co.at/ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ | Max Gutberlet Address: NET4YOU | | NetMaster Net4You Ringmauergasse 8| | Tel.: +43-4242-257367 A-9500 Villach | | Fax.: +43-4242-257368 Carinthia | | email: M.Gutberlet(a)net4you.co.a Austria | +----------------------------------------------------------+

1 0