- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Address space requests to airline companies
by Geert Jan de Groot 04 Aug '94

04 Aug '94

Dear local-ir's, We have received a number of IP address space requests for airline companies in the past. During the IETF, I learned that a class A network number (network 57.0.0.0) has been assigned to an organisation (SITA) under the condition that airlines will get any address space required from this allocation. If you receive an application, please forward them to SITA. If there are any difficulties, please forward the request to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net> Cheers, Geert Jan

3 3

AS number assignment criteria
by Daniel Karrenberg 19 Jul '94

19 Jul '94

Just a quick one about assigning AS numbers. The reasons for ASN requests we get can be categorised as follows: 1 - "Because the router manual says we need one." Needs no further explanation, does it? 2 - "To identify routing processes for internal routing." Some isolated networks run multiple IGPs and seek unique numbers to identify them. 3 - "To identify single-homed ASes." They connect to a service provider or to another enterprise and use external routing. The other end tells them they need an ASN. Strictly speaking they do not need one, because they can only have one external policy. 4 - "To identify multi-homed ASes." These really need one because they have a unique external policy. So far we have never assigned ASNs to categories 1 and 2. I see no reason why we should either. We have assigned ASNs to some in category 3 because their service provider required it for their management purposes. We have always assigned ASNs to category 4. The question now is: Should we assign ASNs to those in category 3 who request it because their ISP requires it? This is a potentially large number. Opinions? Daniel

3 3

New at the RIPE NCC: Mirjam Kuehne
by Daniel Karrenberg 04 Jul '94

04 Jul '94

Today the RIPE NCC welcomes Mirjam Kuehne as new junior administrative staff member. Mirjam joins us from TU Berlin where she has both graduated as a MSc. computer science and worked in an international project in the field of knowledge representation. Mirjam will join Anne Lord, Geert Jan and myself in providing the NCC's core services from today. This will provide much needed relief. I ask all of you to welcome Mirjam and to help him get used to his new responsibilities quickly. Our current trainee Geza Turchanyi will leave us on the 15th of this month. Anyone interested in a traineeship for 3-6 months at the NCC is invited to contact us. The PRIDE and NCC staff work as one team. So it is quite possible that you might deal with Marten or Tony on NCC matters occasionally. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC Manager

2 2

ripe-107 expiring
by Stephan.Biesbroeck＠belnet.be 29 Jun '94

29 Jun '94

ripe-107 is expiring tomorrow. Is there an update available (soon), or do we ignore/change the expire date ?? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Biesbroeck Tel: +32(0)2-2383470 stephan(a)belnet.be Fax: +32(0)2-2315131 Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET

3 2

Re: Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations
by Willi Huber 23 Jun '94

23 Jun '94

> > Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different > autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet > registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that > the organisation of the administrative contact changes. > No problem with me. But in my opignion this policy hasn't been clearly defined until now. One problem I see, is that smaller organizations with a class B - there are many around - will not change to class C's unless they see a benefit for some other organization they are related to. If the reassignment of address space is according to the same rules as assignment of new address space, then why not ask for new one? I doubt whether Daniels maxim 'be a good citizen - give back under used address space' works with real humans. Willi Huber

1 0

Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations
by Daniel Karrenberg 23 Jun '94

23 Jun '94

Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that the organisation of the administrative contact changes. In general there is no problem with such reassignments as long as the address space will be used for the purpose(s) for which it was already assigned. Also there is no problem if a similar amount of address space would have been assigned for the new purpose. As with original assignments local registries will be in charge of processing this. Once the threshold for a second opinion (13 bits == 32Cs) has been reached however it is strongly advised to consult the RIPE NCC. For reassignment of address space of 16 bits or more (class B) consulting the RIPE NCC is mandatory. The reason for this is to prevent a black market in IP addresses which circumvents the review procedures which provide fair address space allocation and which we all work very hard to provide. In my opinion this is no new policy but just a logical consequence of the agreed policies we use. Comments to the list welcome. Questions to me please. Daniel Karrenberg

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Jun '94

19 Jun '94

On Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:49 BST you said: > >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: > >Not quite -- I explained the UK situation on this list a few weeks ago. >In your characterisation, (a) -- government funded -- is probably the best >approximation. However, it's the bit of 'government' that funds university >wide-area networking, so maybe you count that as 'university'? I don't >know, as your wording's ambiguous -- if 'university' means that a >single university funds it then that's *not* the situation, but if >'university' means that the funding comes from the academic networking >activities then that would be the situation. My definition of government funding is when a specific government ministry or agency allocates money to either a university or a consortium to "do networking" and part of the budget has been specificially earmarked for handling registrations. The university of consortium might be doing the work, but the one paying the bill is the government. This is not the same as the government giving a university or universities a few million ECUs to do E3/ATM networking. > >Bob Day Hank

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Erik-Jan Bos 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

Hank, >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) __ Erik-Jan.

3 2

Re: Restarting the discussion
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

On Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:58:45 +0200 (MET DST) you said: >> >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: >> >> DE c >> IL b >> CZ c >> DK d - Eunet Denmark >> ES a >> BE a >> >> >> >a) government funded registry >> >b) university funded registry >> >c) country Internet consortium funded registry >> >d) other >> >> Based on such a small sample I don't think we can conclude anything. >> Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > >Hank, we didn't respond to your survey because I think your rather >simple categories have a tendency to imply wrong and misleading things, >and I simply do not have the time to start a big discussion on why the >categories are wrong. But you should have. > >But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities >of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal >office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries >are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. >governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or >direct government funding. I guess ES and BE should answer. > >Simon Hank

1 0

Re: Restarting the discussion
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

> But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities > of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal > office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries > are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. > governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or > direct government funding. Yep -- as I just said in my previous message on the UK situation (which I'd dispatched just as Simon's very succinct summary arrived!). Bob

1 0