- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: [lir-wg] rfc-ignorant.org
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

> The IP address block 194.78.245.172/30 has a WHOIS contact, > RD3539-RIPE, which lacks an email address. > wripe -t person % This is the RIPE Whois server. % The objects are in RPSL format. % Please visit http://www.ripe.net/rpsl for more information. person: [mandatory] [single] [lookup key] [ ... ] e-mail: [optional] [multiple] [lookup key] [ ... ] ^^^^^^^^ And if we would make it required (I would not object, btw!) - how about registering the.pope(a)holy.see.vt ;-) When and how would we check the usefulness of the eMail entry? And how to deal with race conditions for new sites/networks? Puzzled. Wilfried.

2 1

Re: [lir-wg] rfc-ignorant.org
by Mally Mclane 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, D'HERTOG Pieterjan wrote: > Did someone else receive such emails from rfc-ignorant.org? : You may find apnic's APOPs list and the rfc-ignorant discussion list helpful for background: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apops/archive/2001/10/msg00008.html http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/2001-October/000054.html Do feel free to make your opinion about them and the service they offer. We personally haven't been contacted by them (afaik), but we often get others threatening to submit us to them. Cheers, Mally

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

>> But, to come back to another comment: we're discussing details of >> routing configuration (because that's "easy"?) but I haven't seen any >> comment yet on my question on price/effort vs. (expected) result ratio >> (maybe because it's a bit more difficult? ;-). > >I am not sure this has anything to do with routing configuration vs >pricing. I agree. >It has to do with application of AS-numbers and who are entiled to >get/have one. > >- kurtis - My point is that any attempt to actively reclaim AS#s is going to *cost money*, both on the NCC's end as well as on the community's end. And as many(?) of the ASs which we are presumably talking about have been distributed _before_ the RIRs have been established, there is probably no (longer) a direct AS#/LIR/RIR (i.e. funding) relationship. And even if, we are talking about *our* (the LIRs') money! That's the reason why I'd like to find out about the expected cost, and even more about any educated guess relating to the number of ASs that can likely be reclaimed. And what a difference that number would make in the context of avoiding the introduction of AS#s with more than 16 bits. I hope I was able this time to get my point across ? Wilfried.

8 9

rfc-ignorant.org
by D'HERTOG Pieterjan 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Did someone else receive such emails from rfc-ignorant.org? : > -----Original Message----- > From: > bounce-ripe+194.78.245.172_ripe_skynet.be(a)beatrice.rutgers.edu > > [mailto:bounce-ripe+194.78.245.172_ripe_skynet.be@beatrice.rut > gers.edu] On Behalf Of > reply-ripe+194.78.245.172_ripe_skynet.be(a)beatrice.rutgers.edu > Sent: donderdag 18 juli 2002 0:18 > To: submit-ipwhois(a)rfc-ignorant.org > Cc: ripe(a)skynet.be; noc(a)skynet.be > Subject: 194.78.245.172/30 > > > > The IP address block 194.78.245.172/30 has a WHOIS contact, > RD3539-RIPE, which lacks an email address. This CIDR block is > therefore subject to listing on the blacklist > ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org (see http://www.rfc-ignorant.org) > This email is CCd to the following locatable responsible parties: > ripe(a)skynet.be > noc(a)skynet.be > See below for the WHOIS data. > > -Allen > > inetnum: 194.78.245.172 - 194.78.245.175 > netname: SKY-1869366 > descr: Friends Of The Earth > country: BE > admin-c: RD3539-RIPE > tech-c: SN2068-RIPE > rev-srv: ns1.skynet.be > rev-srv: ns2.skynet.be > rev-srv: ns3.skynet.be > rev-srv: ns4.skynet.be > status: ASSIGNED PA > mnt-by: SKYNETBE-MNT > changed: ripe(a)skynet.be 20010806 > source: RIPE > > role: Skynet NOC administrators > address: Belgacom Skynet SA/NV > address: rue colonel Bourg 124 > address: B-1140 Brussels > address: Belgium > phone: +3227061311 > fax-no: +3227269311 > email: ripe(a)skynet.be > admin-c: JFS1-RIPE > tech-c: PDH16-RIPE > nic-hdl: SN2068-RIPE > remarks: ------------------------------------------ > remarks: Abuse notifications to: abuse(a)skynet.be > remarks: Network problems to: noc(a)skynet.be > remarks: Peering requests to: peering(a)skynet.be > remarks: ------------------------------------------ > notify: noc(a)skynet.be > mnt-by: SKYNETBE-MNT > changed: ripe(a)skynet.be 20010907 > source: RIPE > > person: Roger Doiron > address: Friends Of The Earth > address: Rue Blanche 29 > address: 1060 Bruxelles > phone: +32 25420180 > nic-hdl: RD3539-RIPE > remarks: SKYNET-SKYNET-1602730 > notify: noc(a)skynet.be > mnt-by: SKYNETBE-MNT > changed: Ripe(a)skynet.be 20010802 > source: RIPE > > > -- > Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ > September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - > Benjamin Franklin > --- 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

1 0

Anna Skyllberg/Tele2 is out of the office.
by anna.skyllberg＠tele2.se 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

I will be out of the office starting 2002-06-21 and will not return until 2002-08-12. I will respond to your message when I return.

1 0

Re-registration of the ip address from the closed LIR to new LIR
by Sergey Artjushkin 15 Jul '02

15 Jul '02

Hello colleagues Our company and our partners have faced with one problem. During along time between ours the companies there were very close relations, not only financial, but also technically. Recently a management of both companies have solved to consolidate two companies in one. Both at a financial level and on a technological level. As the technical worker, I can tell, that all clients of our partner pass to us and networks of both companies will be combine. Both companies were registered in RIPE and have received LIR, AS and ip space. As a result of closing the company of our partner LIR registration will be stops and ip addresses will be back. In this connection, technical workers of both companies with horror expect merge of the companies. From one idea, that it is necessary to replace all clients on new ip addresses become badly. Our partners was working during a long time and for this time they have collected the big base of clients. At present, our partners has two blocks of addresses: /19 and /17. Our company will not have not enough ip addresses so we should ask additional ip space. And now my question is: It is theoretically possible to re-register addresses our partners, as belonging to us (new origin in route object and new MNT in network object). How it to make practically? I have sent the letter in RIPE but yet have not received any answer. Thank you for advance for any help. -- With best regards. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sergey Artjushkin Network Operation Center Phone: +7 (095) 363-22-52 ISP "CARAVAN" Fax: +7 (095) 363-22-52 http://www.caravan.ru

2 1

need help !
by Razavi (Support) 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

Dear friends Im a new technical admin and new one in ripe knowledge, newly i heard about the new AS# policy but i didnt understant any thing ! is there some one over there to help me or gives me some information about that? wait for your help, Best Regards, --Razavi.

2 1

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
by Lu, Ping 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Berislav Todorovic [mailto:beri@kpnqwest.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 6:38 AM > To: Hank Nussbacher > Cc: Christopher Sharp; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > >> I'd like to make a suggestion. Since these ASNs and IP > blocks are the > >> property of the RIRs, and since organizations are cybersquatting on > >> these resources why shouldn't these RIRs advertise these > IP blocks and > >> ASNs themselves and blackhole them to their routers? > > I'd like to back this idea! > > However, even if ICANN itself suddenly gets stroken by > lightning of technical > wisdom and starts announcing unused /8's - that won't prevent > offenders from > announcing more specific routes, will it? On the other hand, > announcing /24's > will really pollute the global routing table, which is big > enough anyway. I don't think to blackholing traffic is a good idea, especially when bandwidth means money in today's internet. RIRs should publish a list to include all the offending prefixes and the major ISPs will be more than happy to apply the prefix filter to block transit to those prefixes. There is already an IANA bogon filter floating around. RIPE NCC could add a filter-set object, let's say FLTR-RIPE-RESERVED-IPV4 and ARIN should have a FLTR-ARIN-RESERVED-IPV4 object, APNIC also should have a FLTR-APNIC-RESERVED-IPV4 object. Then all major ISPs could apply these filter to block transit traffic for these prefixes. > > Still, having a service like Paul Vixie's AS7777 would help a > lot: an ISP > willing to receive blackhole routes would bring a route > server on their > backbone, establish a peering session with "IANA blackhole > AS" and use the > routes to construct filters etc. > > Regards, > Beri > Blocking is a better idea than blackholing.... Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net

6 14

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
by BLOCKI,JACEK (HP-Poland,ex1) 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

If we need AS revocation policy and cannot agree on usage auditing based on technical wisdom, we can consider some old fashioned administrative measures such as AS subscription fee paid to RIR. Make it 1$/year AS maintenance fee paid to RIR (similar to LIR fee). It will at least allow to identify ASes assigned to terminated organizations. Feel free to flame me ;-) Regards, Jacek

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

>I think that this is up to the definition of "publicly visible". If I have >one upstream and several peers, that is to me "public". I see few (no?) >other real reasons for assigning an AS that is not seen through two or more >paths in the global routing table. It is not that rare. For example we do have some universities which have one upstream (us, ACOnet) and peerings with other ISPs (for whatever reason) _but no transit_ from them. Some of them would be "visible" (e.g. those with legacy class B space), others would be proxy aggregated into our /15 and "disappear". But, to come back to another comment: we're discussing details of routing configuration (because that's "easy"?) but I haven't seen any comment yet on my question on price/effort vs. (expected) result ratio (maybe because it's a bit more difficult? ;-). Wilfried.

2 1