D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T Minute of Local IR WG Meeting at RIPE-18, May 1994 X.Y Local IR Working Group (D Karrenberg) Chair: D Karrenberg Scribe: M Norris X.Y.1 Opening An agenda circulated beforehand was agreed. The minutes of the meeting held during RIPE-17 in January 1994 were agreed. X.Y.2 Election of New Chairman D Karrenberg explained why he had announced his resignation as chairman. The efficacy of the WG might be questioned given that the Director of the NCC presided over a group drawn from the membership of RIPE, which set the agenda of the NCC. In addition, the workload of the NCC was now so onerous that all other activities had to be reviewed. Following discussion, the meeting unanimously expressed its complete satisfaction in the chairmanship by D Karrenberg of the Local IR Working Group. The Group had found the close linkage with the NCC to be of great benefit, and that this had never impeded its work nor imposed any limitations on its freedom of action. The meeting reluctantly accepted the resignation of the chairman. M Norris agreed to act as chairman, with effect from the end of the meeting. X.Y.3 European Registry Report by the NCC D Karrenberg reported that, from experience, it may be that enterprise networks, such as those belonging to large multi- or trans-national organisations, needed their own IP registries. As a rule, such organisations did not get delegated address space. However, coordination between local and regional registries was important. X.Y.4 Reports of Significant Events at Local Registries Question: In light of renumbering caused by CIDR, what should be done with returned addresses? It was agreed that such addresses could be returned, and welcome, to any European IR. Such IRs would return addresses to the NCC. If the addresses could be aggregated, they would be re-used, otherwise they would be returned to IANA. Question: Will someone write a paper on why it is a good idea to return unused addresses? Some discussion, but no takers. It was agreed that incidents of note should be reported to the list and to the NCC, and not reported only at WG meetings. Incidents were reported of applications being rejected in Europe but accepted on re-application to other regional registries. The group expressed concern at the disparity in the criteria applied by RIPE and InterNIC registries. Action 18.1 D Karrenberg Convey RIPE's concern at this disparity to the InterNIC. X.Y.5 Standard IP Application Form There was a discussion of multiple applications to different registries by the same organisation, or by different components of the same organisation. It was agreed that the standard form should be revised to guard against such abuses. The following changes should be made: * Indicate that any statements made in the form could be used in consideration of future applications * Applicants should indicate their parent organisation and its assigned address space, if any * Applicants to state whether they had made any applications for IP addresses in Europe or elsewhere Action 18.2 NCC Draft new standard form in light of above recommendations for discussion on the list. X.Y.6 Default Range of AS Numbers D Karrenberg had asked IANA for a default range of AS numbers, but this had been refused. [ Yves, can you please fill in the text of the point you made here? ] [ I apologise for not minuting it properly. ] X.Y.7 Report from Local IR Workshop The workshop held before the start of RIPE-18 had been well attended, numbers exceeding those who had booked and the number of lunch equivalents. RFC1597, concerning the allocation of private IP addresses, was noted. Common errors with the administration of reverse DNS zones had been summarised. Action 18.3 NCC Investigate monthly publication of error files on reverse zone files, a la host count. X.Y.8 Funding of and Charging for Local Registry Service The meeting agreed that these were important issues and that the group should make recommendations as soon as possible. Action 18.4 M Norris Initiate discussion on the list and aim to summarise by way of a draft recommendation. X.Y.9 Assignment Statistics W Woeber and W Huber had suggested means of representing address space assignment status. This would be discussed on the list.