- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management
by Axel Pawlik 10 Oct '02

10 Oct '02

Dear all, The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published a document entitled, "RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management." This document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/nrr-blueprint-20021009.html The RIRs have also sent this document to the Chair of the ICANN Board, the Chair of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee, and the ICANN President and CEO. The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing community on the contents of this document. To facilitate discussion focused on this document, a dedicated mailing list has been established and is open to all interested parties. Subscription information for the NRR-Blueprint mailing list is available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html All comments sent to the NRR-Blueprint mailing list will be publicly archived at the following location. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/nrr-blueprint/index.html kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Correction..pay ICANN $17,476,267 *each year* for EACH /8.
by Jim Fleming 09 Oct '02

09 Oct '02

Correction..pay ICANN $17,476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming(a)ameritech.net> To: <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: Paying Market Value for Address Space Leases...pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. > > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > ==== > > A /8 is 16,777,216 such products. At an average of $12.50 per month, that is > $209,715,200 from the ISP to ARIN each year. > > ARIN can then pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 > 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 > 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 067/8 ARIN May 01 > 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 > 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 > 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 > 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 > 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 > 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 > 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 > 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 > 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 > ===== > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.ietf.com > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > 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 > http://ipv8.community.net.au > >

1 0

Reserved addresses
by Peter B. Juul 09 Oct '02

09 Oct '02

This may not be the best list for posting this question in, but I've been unable to figure out which one to use instead. Please forgive me. In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP communication between a number of institutions. The logical choice for this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what 1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved networks and thus unavailable to this project. My knee-jerk response as a somewhat conscientious networker is "So what? We'll just have to pick some addresses not presently in use. There should be plenty. Yes, it will take coordination, but that's life." Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? I really want to avoid this and stay within the RFC1918-nets, but I need a good response. Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" in for example http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? Peter B. Juul, Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)

1 0

Re: Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform
by Sabine Dolderer/Denic 08 Oct '02

08 Oct '02

Hello, maybe I can come in the debate with some practical experiences from the ccTLD side as we are suffering some problems since some time. On 08.10.2002 21:53 Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no> wrote: > > > > --On 8. oktober 2002 11:06 +0900 Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > > > to paraphrase from a private conversation: > > > > note that the iana function is the only formal link between the > > ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break. > > the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms) > > consideration sections in rfcs. > > So a design criteria for whatever scenario we are looking at should be to > maintain this link. (ie co-organisation of the IETF-IANA function and the > RIR-IANA function. > > > there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what > > different parties need from the iana function, and their/our > > respective relationships to and through the iana. the rir position > > seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf position, such > > as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in > > the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. > > I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived de > facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff. > > I belive this concern is only true if it is in fact so that ICANN staff > makes policy desicions (or suggests them to the board who ratifies them > without public process) that is unfortunately done on a regular basis at least in the ccTLD area and you should be aware that unless there are no contractual safegards they may try it for the RIRs. > > The cause for this concern is that while some of us see something as a > policy desicion others don't. > > The very fundamental question is perhaps: > - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not > require an open transparent process ? In the domain area ICANN have took a lot of decisions in the past without using an open and transparent process even when ccTLDs told them not to do so and - and - that was the biggest surprise to me - nobody - including the ICANN board - cares. It starts with the complete ignorance in how ccTLDs want to organize themselves, unilateral changes in the IANA policies, blocking of necesarry technical changes, developing a new CC-structure wihin ICANN without taking into account the work of the ccSO ... > > Looking carefully at that question I realise that it can be generalized: > - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by X which does not require an > open transparent process ? > > where X = {ICANN, RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...} > > and this it is where it gets interesting: the question should be if X=ICANN thinks they don't need an open & transparent process has Y= (RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...) the possibility to stop them to implement policies just by doing. > - the concern is exactly the same at both sides of the ICANN vs RIR > discussion... > > -hph > > Sabine -- Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenhüttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt eMail: Sabine.Dolderer(a)denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235

1 0

creation of taskforce to support the ERX project (early registration xfer)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 04 Oct '02

04 Oct '02

Dear participants in the DB and LIR WGs, as discussed and agreed in the DB-WG in Rhodes, and reported to the plenary, this is the "heads up" for the creation of a TaskForce (ERX-TF) to help in planning and test-driving the procedures and activities required to *most efficiently* perform the transfer of "early registrations" (sometimes also referred to as "legacy" IPv4 address space) from the ARIN DB to the RIPE DB.. [ For background information about the ERX Project please refer to the RIPE / RIPE NCC web pages. ] The proposed name of the TaskForce is "ERX-TF" . The preliminary and initial description of the activity is as follows: "The goal of the TF is to develop a proposal to the community of the transfer of early registration IPv4 address records (ERX) from ARIN to the RIPE NCC." For a start, I'd expect the TF to review the lessons learned from the transfer of AS Number Objects, and to investigate new or different issues with the already agreed transfer of IPv4 address space objects. The necessary next steps are 1) to ask the bigger community, by way of the mailing lists, whether there are any objections against the creation of the TF 2) to work on a refinement of the mandate, tasks to perform, and the expected results 3) to agree on a schedule, set of participants and to find a coordinator. Most of the work should be done by way of exchanging email amongst the TF Partcipants. Following up on expressions of interest as received during the RIPE43 WG session, an initial list of individuals would be put onto the mailing list. [ please see at the bottom of this mail ] Of course, if you are no longer interested - just let us know. Also, if you _are_ interested to join in - but did not or could not indicate your interest in Rhodes, please get back to us asap! Assuming that there would not be a major show-stopper, could I ask the NCC to follow up with any useful info (list name, draft schedule,...) to get us going as soon as possible? Cheers, Wilfried. Initial list of TF particpants: Havard Eidnes <he(a)uninett.no> Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)att.net.il> Gabriella Paolini <gabriella.paolini(a)garr.it> Kristian Rastas <kristian.rastas(a)sonera.com> Nigel Titley Ruediger Volk Wilfried Woeber <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

Static IP addresses
by Bob Arnesen 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

We live in Stockholm, Sweden and have the big government telephone company TELIA as our ISP. We have had internet services through their ADSL for a little over a year now and to my surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the internet we start surfing with the same IP address every time. From a security and personal integrity point of view we may as well be surfing with our Social Security Numbers if thats the case. Of course dealing with a company the size of Telia you are immediately in David against Goliath position, and their position up to now is to just jack us around and assume no responsibility. When we had the old 56K modem and even ISDN, every time we got on the net we had a new IP address. Impossible to trace us and our surfing habits to a specific number. But not so with Telias ADSL. My questions are the following: * Is Telias current practice as I have described considered a breach of privacy for the private person/customer? * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards regarding IP addresses? * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. Regards, Robert Arnesen

15 20

important database record
by Andrius Kasparavicius 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

hello, I think all should know this important record: JH914-RIPE Andrius Kasparavicius UAB "Kauneta" NOC

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

...from the point of view of a plain commercial ADSL service customer: >On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, > Bob Arnesen <bob.arnesen(a)telia.com> wrote > a message of 288 lines which said: > >> Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the >... >> * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either How I'd love to trade places with you. I'd regularly ship you my constantly changing IP addresses in return for your fixed one :-) Cheers, Wilfried.

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses
by Gyan Mathur 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

Hoi > > So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more > > important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). > > I think it is more likely that your average common user is simply unaware > of possible privacy implications. Most people simply want to 'get on the > net'. If a customer sends unwanted mail or has got a proxy that someone misuses, it is much easier to find out which customer it is if they have got a static IP address. Gyan Demon Internet Nederland

1 0

Draft agenda
by Hans Petter Holen 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Dear lir-wg, Thanks to help from Leo we now have the following draft agenda. Please send me suggestions and updaes as nedded to prepare a relevant agenda for our meeting: The LIR Working Group session will be held on Wednesday 11 September 2002 from 09.00 - 12.30. Draft Agenda for RIPE 43 (version 0.1) 09:00 - 12:30 Wednesday, 11 September 2002 Chair: Hans Petter Holen Co-chair: Denesh Bhabuta A. Admin: Scribe Participant List, Charter, Mailing lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 42 minutes and actions D. Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services - Presentation by leo vegoda E. Report from the Address Council - Presentation F. IPv4 Assignment and Allocation Policy F.1 "Official Sub-Allocations" Proposal by Gert Doering G. Presentation of AC candiates X. Any other business Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting Z. Open microphone ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- For current issues, please turn to the LIR Working Group mailing list archives at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/index.html More information about this working group is located at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html Best regards, --- Hans Petter Holen, Technical Manager, Tiscali, Norway, phone: +47 24 11 26 44 mobile: +47 99 21 76 70 fax:+47 24 11 24 11

2 2