- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8
by Jim Fleming 26 Nov '02

26 Nov '02

----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" <bkrosnov(a)lirex.bg> Reading the draft below it seems that ICANN perporms some of the functions of IANA, including the administration of the arpa TLD.... http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-iab-arpa-00.txt Do you then conclude that RIPE should pay ICANN directly ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Does it matter who RIPE pays the $168,000,000 per /8 per year to ? ======

1 0

ICANN--->RIPE or ICANN--->ARIN--->RIPE ?
by Jim Fleming 26 Nov '02

26 Nov '02

ICANN--->RIPE http://www.icann.org/biog/blokzijl.htm "Robert Blokzijl is a founding member of RIPE, the European open forum for IP networking. Since its foundation in 1989, he has been chairman of this organization, and was instrumental in the creation of RIPE NCC in 1992 as the first Regional Internet Registry in the world." === ICANN--->ARIN--->RIPE ? ...appears to more closely follow the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations... Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee

1 0

From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8
by Jim Fleming 26 Nov '02

26 Nov '02

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05359.html RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 ==== IP Allocations flow....>>>> ICANN---->ARIN---->RIPE---->LIRs---->ISPs---->Users $$<------$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<----- Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee

1 0

RIPE in China...
by Jim Fleming 26 Nov '02

26 Nov '02

http://www.iab.org/IABmins/IABmins.2002-10-08.html ".ARPA Domain Servers The chair reported that the RIPE NCC has secured an agreement with CNNIC to operate a secondary e164.arpa domain name server in China." ==== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee

1 0

Las Vegas, Nevada, US...
by Jim Fleming 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

Las Vegas, Nevada, US http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/PPM.html Mader, Sabine RIPE NCC Pawlik, Axel RIPE NCC Rendek, Paul RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
by Janos Zsako 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

> From lir-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Mon Nov 25 16:59:35 2002 > From: Andrius Kasparavicius <andrius(a)andrius.org> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:42:38PM +0000, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote: > > > > Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership status. > > > For every IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, > > > and oth.? > > > > This is in effect what SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE is about I guess.. I'm not > > sure however that we will benefit from the increased level of fees, but I > > would have to look at it more closely. > > But I think it is inadequate calculation. I didn't see anywhere any > specification about how membership status is assigned. Maybe someone can > point me out? :-) The RIPE NCC Activity plan for 2003 makes reference to the algorithm used to determine the size of a LIR. This is the paragraph 4.1. of RIPE document ripe-146 that you can find at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-146.txt or ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-146.ps This algorithm is used to determine the LIR sizes since 1997, if I am correct. I hope this helps. Best regards, Janos PS: The algorithm tries to take into account the address space already allocated to the LIR, weighted with the age of the allocation. The rationale of this weighting is that the NCC hostmasters have less work with older allocations. This is based on the NCC's experience, as far as I know. > Andrius >

1 0

RIPE NCC Status Update Mr. Axel Pawlik
by Jim Fleming 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

http://lacnic.net/en/schedule.html RIPE NCC Status Update Mr. Axel Pawlik

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
by Boyan Krosnov 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

note to self: I'll probably regret having a word wih this troll, but I'll take the chances. :) Jim, WHAT makes you think that RIPE NCC pays for addresses? WHOM do you think they pay to? Please don't even mention IPv8/IPv16 this time, they are not in the question so I expect an answer clean of those two. Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 http://boyan.ludost.net/ Just another techie speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming@ameritech.net] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:21 PM > To: Peter Galbavy; Axel Pawlik > Cc: Local IR Working Group > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > Given that 32-bit IP addresses lease(rent) for $10 to $15 per month... > ...and given that Real Estate brokers generally take one > month's rent per year as a fee... > ....the market value for a /8 would be approximately > $168,000,000 per year... > > How much does RIPE pay (wholesale) for a /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > ===

2 3

Fw: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting."
by Jim Fleming 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: Re: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting." > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen(a)shapirocohen.com> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:26 AM > Subject: RE: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting." > > > > Well Im pleased to be a source of amusement. > ==== > > What is the annual (license|lease) fee for a /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > What /8s have been billed this year ? > http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html > > http://www.icann.org/committees/exec-search/ceo-search-announcement-20nov02… > http://www.icann.org/committees/exec-search/ceo-spec-20nov02.htm > The 2002-2003 budget authorizes total expenditures of US$6.2 Million and a staff of 27. > ==== > $6,200,000 / 27 = $229,629.63 > ==== > > Where is the revenue from Address Space Leasing (Licensing) ? > ===== > > >

1 0

ERX of v4 address space proposal
by Andrei Robachevsky 22 Nov '02

22 Nov '02

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for your review. This proposal was reviewed by the ERX-Taskforce that was set-up at the RIPE 43 meeting. Comments received were summarised and sent to both Database and LIR Working Group mailing lists. We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal no later than Wednesday, 13 November 2002. A timeline for this project will be issued along with final project description. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC ERX of v4 address space ----------------------- INTRODUCTION When ARIN began operations, it inherited classful blocks of addresses ("legacy" space) that were issued to organisations not in ARIN's region. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are co-ordinating the transfer of these records from the ARIN Database to RIPE Database or APNIC Database, as appropriate. This is based on geographic location of each resource holder. The affected records include class B networks and class C ranges, particularly those issued from 192/8. ARIN also maintains reverse delegation for all legacy address space. Once the transfer is complete, this responsibility will be distributed among the RIRs according to their respective regions. BENEFITS This will enable resource holders to maintain all their records in one database and End Users to interface with just one RIR for all database and reverse delegation matters. This effort will also help to locate address holders and recover unused or underutilised address space. IMPACT ON RESOURCE HOLDERS Entities holding legacy space to be transferred can expect the process to be largely transparent. While it will not affect network status in any way, resource holders might be required to create contact identifiers with the proper registry if they do not already exist. Queries made in WHOIS for an IP block that has been transferred to another RIR will be directed to the appropriate RIR. APPROACH The plan is to perform the transfer by /8. For each /8 the following tasks have to be performed: 1. Conflicts (contacts and description) to be resolved 2. Records and associated documentation to be transferred 3. Reverse delegation to be set up A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred. CONFLICTS The following types of conflicts have been identified: C1. Record exists in ARIN DB only. There is no exact matching (range wise) record in the RIPE DB. Proposal: to update internal documentation, create the record in the RIPE DB and protect with a unique generated mntner. C2. Range matches records in both ARIN and RIPE DBs. Meaning that contact and description may be different. Most cases indicate out of date information in one of the Databases, not real conflicts or attempts to hijack address space. What happened in most cases is that people started maintaining their allocation or assignement in the RIPE DB, especially since RIPE DB started to support the Routing Registry. Proposal: Notify conflicts and give time to reach consensus. After the deadline merge those who haven't responded, but _do_not_lock_ (keep the same mntner). C3.0 Record exists in the RIPE DB only. C3.1. One reason why such situation may exist is that this is a valid RIPE NCC allocation. Proposal: To preserve information in the RIPE DB. C3.2 Another situation is that the registration data are simply garbage. Proposal: Notify, give time for explanations and clean up in the end. PROCEDURE for a /8 1. Pre transfer 1.1 Initial dump is prepared for transfer by ARIN 1.2 Announcement is sent to ARIN's contacts 1.3 Reverese delegation domain space is cleaned up in the RIPE DB (reverse domain objects for which no delegation was provided are deleted) 2. Transfer 2.1 Final dump is prepared by ARIN 2.2 C1 group: database records are imported, documentation is updated, contacts are notified 2.3 C2 group: contacts (ARIN+RIPE) are asked to reach consensus. 2.4 C3.2 group: contacts are notified of possible deletion. 2.5 DNS is updated: domain objects are generated, zone (full or partial) is generated. 3. Conflict resolution 3.1 C2 group: non responding records are merged but _not_locked_. 3.2 C3.2 group: records without good reasons are deleted. -------

7 12