- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

16 Jun '94

> 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. Bob Day

1 0

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

16 Jun '94

Simon, > > >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > > > > NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) > > Stiching SURFnet or SURFnet BV? The choices are: - Stichting SURF - SURFnet bv The correct answer is: - SURFnet bv __ Erik-Jan.

1 0

RE: Restarting the discussion
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

>Anyone else care to respond to the survey? Sure, but I would have expected that the people running the service would speak up by themselves ;-) For Austria the Last-Resort Registry is provided by Eunet Austria Ltd. I suppose the necessary is seen as a useful publicity exercise... Best regards, Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Restarting the discussion
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Jun '94

16 Jun '94

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

3 2

RIPE database update problems
by Marten Terpstra 14 Jun '94

14 Jun '94

Folks, We have found (after notification from several people) that we have some strange things going on with the database every now and again. We are currently looking into the problem and have suspended all update requested for now. The updates you send in will be queued, but not processed until we turn on the database software again. The current estimate is later tonight. whois service works as normal. Apologies for the inconvenience. -Marten

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Hank Nussbacher 29 May '94

29 May '94

On Tue, 24 May 94 12:31:14 +0200 you said: >>is the decision to be made then I would like to see a table of all RIPE >>countries that provide free registry services with who provides the >>funding: >> >>a) government funded registry >>b) university funded registry >>c) country Internet consortium funded registry > >For DE it's model c above. > >>d) other >> >>Do people feel that such a table would be worthwhile to determine who >>is currently funding registry services in Europe today? > >Yes - very good idea. > >>Hank >Dave Ok. Plz send me your reply to the above and I will summerize to the list. Please indicate what region you manage. Thanks, Hank

1 0

map of assigned networks
by Willi Huber 24 May '94

24 May '94

Hallo, prior to the past RIPE meeting I sent a (rather long) message onto this list about a 'graphical' representation of the assigned networks from the blocks 193/8 - 194/8. Nandor Horvath has asked me to make available the script that generated this output. Here it is. Make with it whatever you like. Willi Huber -------------- An example: netmap 193.5/16 <ripe.db netmap: looking for networks 193.5.0 <= network < 193.6.0 193.005.000 .*#*#...**##****#*#*#*#*#*##*#*#****#*#*#*#*##**#*#*#*##**#.*#*# 193.005.064 ....**##****####*#*#*#*#********#*#*#*#*#*#*####****####*#*#*#** 193.005.128 ################******..####****#####...****##**##*#************ 193.005.192 ########################********################**********#.*#* -------------- #!/bin/perl $c = "*"; $counter = 65; $arg = shift(@ARGV); if ($arg =~ /^\d+.*\/\d+$/) { ($firstnet,$bits) = split(/\//,$arg); } else { $bits = 32; } &binnet($firstnet); $bits = 24-$bits; if ($bits < 0) { print <<"end_of_text"; exit; } Usage: netmap net/bits file net/bits: the range of network addresses to be analysed file: the input file in the format of the ripe.db. If file is omitted, STDIN is read example: netmap 193/8 ripe.db NOTE: this script does not run propperly for class B addresses, use it only with calss C's. end_of_text $mask = 1; while ($bits-- > 0) { $mask *= 2; } $firstnet = int($firstnet / $mask) * $mask; $lastnet = $firstnet+$mask; print "\nnetmap: looking for networks "; &printnet($firstnet); print " <= network < "; &printnet($lastnet); print "\n\n"; open(INET,">/tmp/netmap.$$") || die "netmap: Couldn't open >/tmp/netmap.$$\n"; while (<>) { if (/\*in/) { chop; ($key,$value) = split(/\s+/,$_,2); if ($value =~ /-/) { ($value,$value2) = $value =~ /(\S+) - (\S+)/; &binnet($value); &binnet($value2); } else { &binnet($value); $value2 = $value; } if (($value >= $firstnet) && ($value < $lastnet)) { printf INET "%09d %09d\n",$value,$value2; } } } close INET; $lastplotted = $firstnet-1; open(SORTED,"sort /tmp/netmap.$$ |") || die "netmap: Couldn't open sort /tmp/netmap.$$ |\n"; while (<SORTED>) { ($value,$value2) = split; &plot($value,$value2); } print "\n"; close SORTED; unlink("/tmp/netmap.$$"); exit; sub binnet { undef(@bytes); (@bytes) = split(/\./,$_[0]); $_[0] = ($bytes[0]*256+$bytes[1])*256+$bytes[2]; } sub printnet { local($i) = $_[0]; printf "%d.%d.%d", int($i / 0x10000), int($i / 0x100 % 0x100), $i % 0x100; } sub plot { local($v,$v2) = @_; if ($lastplotted >= $v) { return; } $lastplotted++; while ($lastplotted != $v) { &plotnet(".",$lastplotted); $lastplotted++; } &plotnet($c,$v); while ($v != $v2) { $v++; &plotnet($c,$v); } $lastplotted = $v2; if ($c eq "*") { $c = "#"; } else { $c = "*" } } sub plotnet { local($c,$i) = @_; if ($counter >= 64) { printf "\n%03d.%03d.%03d ", int($i / 0x10000), int($i / 0x100 % 0x100), $i % 0x100; $counter = 0; } $counter++; print $c; }

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Dave Morton 24 May '94

24 May '94

>is the decision to be made then I would like to see a table of all RIPE >countries that provide free registry services with who provides the >funding: > >a) government funded registry >b) university funded registry >c) country Internet consortium funded registry For DE it's model c above. >d) other > >Do people feel that such a table would be worthwhile to determine who >is currently funding registry services in Europe today? Yes - very good idea. >Hank Dave

1 0

Re: Address space for individuals
by Erik-Jan Bos 24 May '94

24 May '94

Daniel, > > Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot(a)ripe.net> writes: > > > - If this person only has a few hosts, then it is probably a good idea to > > ask him to renumber once he connects to the Internet. I don't believe > > that renumbering 3 PC's would be that much of a problem. > > 1597 might be useful after all.. > > This sums up my personal opinion. Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent approach among all Local IRs. > If they are not going to connect immediately, then let them use private > address space and renumber their 3 hosts later. > > If they are going to connect immediately, let the service provider > registry assign numbers. Sure. > I know of cases where they subnet part of > the SP space. Soon - when we have a classless allocation registry, > this can even be registered. The world, now classless, might have /30s and /29s all over the place. I do not want to think of /32s. This gives us a neat "tool" to make sure that everybody has address space assigned to her or him that fits the needs. Looking into my cristal ball (sorry, I sound like somebody else :-) ), I see a world in which the bakery on the corner of the street has a brand new /28 assigned to his one-man company by a ISP he selected. After a few month the guy making bread discovers there is an ISP for the bakery branch in his city and he wants to switch over to the bakery-ISP. This ISP welcomes his new customer with open arms and announces this /28 to the Internet at large. Remember, this /28 is from the first ISP in this story. Think of what this will do to the efficiency of CIDR... Bottom line of this story is that there needs to be a mechanism in place that forces the bakery to renumber to a CIDR range of his new service provider. For the bakery with a /28 this is not too complex, but what about this large company with a /15? __ Erik-Jan.

10 16

Re: Address space for individuals
by Dave Morton 24 May '94

24 May '94

>On Fri, 20 May 94 17:32:13 BST you said: >>One point I'd suggest though -- I don't believe it would be realistic >>to expect a uniform charge across Europe. As with everything else in life, >>costs will vary from country to country. One discussion point will be Yes - agreed Bob, we've already this problem in many pan-European projects. Trying to explain why overheads are different from PT to DE is not easy. >>whether one wants the idea of free competition across Europe, with >>customers "shopping around" (the Maastricht ideal, I suppose), or a >>situation where customers aren't "allowed" to apply in other than >>their own country (ie regulation, or a cartel, depending on your view.) >>If the latter then there's an interesting consequence of what to do >>if a one country's Last Resort Registry starts charging unreasonably >>high prices ... this is a problem that hasn't been solved yet in the >>well known area of line provision! In the case of IP numbers and domains one can sort of argue that a certain monopolistic type structure is required for technical reasons (cidr, tlds etc.) - how long this holds if we have competing pan-European or global service providers is crystal ball stuff. >Imagine the havoc it would play on CIDR if everyone shopped around >to save a few ECUs on an IP address. RIPE could come out with >a recommendation range, i.e. $10-$30 per class C. Not possible Hank - I don't believe RIPE should try to regulate markets, assuming such a market were to emerge. But you're right - it'll play havoc with cidr if such a market does emerge before IPng gets widely implemented, available and installed. How is NSAP allocation done in other European countries ? I know that here in DE one obtains NSAP for around 32ecu per NSAP per year. Does this compare and is there some sort of international (european agreement on this) - I doubt it ? >>Could be an interesting discussion.... Indeed. >> >>Bob Day > >Hank Nussbacher Dave

1 0