RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
You also don't take notice of the fact that RIPE have stated that they do not want us to update the RIPE database with our Dial-Up IPs, the majority of what you continually show in your little table...
I will agree with Sam's sentiments/comments here... RIPE indeed did say that and preferred to receive static verification tables once a week... well it was the case when I worked at Demon... Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta, AMISM European Internet Services Group Level (3) Communications Limited +44-20-7864-0498 ; denesh.bhabuta@level3.com
"Bhabuta, Denesh" <Denesh.Bhabuta@Level3.com> writes: * > You also don't take notice of the fact that RIPE have stated * > that they do * > not want us to update the RIPE database with our Dial-Up IPs, * > the majority * > of what you continually show in your little table... * * I will agree with Sam's sentiments/comments here... RIPE indeed did say tha * t * and preferred to receive static verification tables once a week... well it * was the case when I worked at Demon... * Just to clarify this issue from the RIPE NCC's point of view: In general all end-user assignments need to be registered in the database. In the specific case of dial-up users the concern was raised that this could possibly disclose the entire customer list of an ISP. Therefore the regional registries together with IANA developed an alternative procedure for this specific case. This means the ISP/LIR has the choice between either registering all indiviudal dial-up assignments in the database or sending a regular update of the utilisation of these addresses. Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC * Regards * Denesh * -- * Denesh Bhabuta, AMISM * European Internet Services Group * Level (3) Communications Limited * +44-20-7864-0498 ; denesh.bhabuta@level3.com *
Hello Mirjam
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Mirjam Kuehne Sent: Donnerstag, 18. November 1999 19:20 To: Bhabuta, Denesh Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
Just to clarify this issue from the RIPE NCC's point of view: In general all end-user assignments need to be registered in the database. In the specific case of dial-up users the concern was raised
do you check it ? do you look at all cases ? Do you have enough man-power to check everything ? What about the old assignment to the Companies, who were acting as last resort and now have a huge amount of Class-B networks, which they use NOW WITHOUT approval from RIPE ? What about assignments which were made in the past, but not used and will never be used in the public ? There are many Networks in the Routing-Table without inetnum object in the Database. route: 151.15.0.0/16 descr: INFOSTRADA origin: AS1267 mnt-by: AS1267-MNT changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19990205 source: RIPE ... route: 151.82.0.0/16 descr: INFOSTRADA origin: AS1267 mnt-by: AS1267-MNT changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19991110 source: RIPE This are more than 60 (!) Class B networks and there are many more in the RIPE DB ! A valid route object in the RIPE DB looks like that these networks are used or will be used. It could be an idea to check for route objects without inetnum object in the DB. Ripe could send out an email to these users requesting a valid network plan. I think we can get a lot of networks back to RIPE NCC in a very short period. There are some organisations which got assignments in the past under old conditions and circumstances inetnum: 164.16.0.0 - 164.34.0.0 netname: TELEKOM-BLK Did RIPE ever request a valid network plan ? All LIRs have to provide you network plans on request ! So before we discuss how to save adress space concerning IPs for virtual web housing, RIPE should start checking the old assignments. Just my 0,02 Winfried
Winfried, Thank you for the suggestions. Please be assured that the RIPE NCC puts a lot of effort in improving the consistency of the database and in the conservation of address space. We will certainly consider your suggestions in our efforts. If you have additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne Head External Services RIPE NCC "Winfried Haug" <haug@seicom.NET> writes: * Hello Mirjam * * > -----Original Message----- * > From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of * > Mirjam Kuehne * > Sent: Donnerstag, 18. November 1999 19:20 * > To: Bhabuta, Denesh * > Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net * > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting * > * * > * > Just to clarify this issue from the RIPE NCC's point of view: In * > general all end-user assignments need to be registered in the * > database. In the specific case of dial-up users the concern was raised * * do you check it ? do you look at all cases ? Do you have enough man-power * to check everything ? * * What about the old assignment to the Companies, who were acting as last * resort and now have a huge amount of Class-B networks, which they use NOW * WITHOUT approval from RIPE ? * What about assignments which were made in the past, but not used and * will never be used in the public ? * * There are many Networks in the Routing-Table without inetnum object in * the Database. * * route: 151.15.0.0/16 * descr: INFOSTRADA * origin: AS1267 * mnt-by: AS1267-MNT * changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19990205 * source: RIPE * * ... * route: 151.82.0.0/16 * descr: INFOSTRADA * origin: AS1267 * mnt-by: AS1267-MNT * changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19991110 * source: RIPE * * This are more than 60 (!) Class B networks and there are many more in the * RIPE DB ! * * A valid route object in the RIPE DB looks like that these networks are used * or will be used. * * It could be an idea to check for route objects without inetnum object in th * e * DB. * Ripe could send out an email to these users requesting a valid network plan * . * I * think we can get a lot of networks back to RIPE NCC in a very short period. * * * There are some organisations which got assignments in the past under old * conditions and circumstances * * * inetnum: 164.16.0.0 - 164.34.0.0 * netname: TELEKOM-BLK * * Did RIPE ever request a valid network plan ? * * All LIRs have to provide you network plans on request ! So before we discus * s * how to save adress space concerning IPs for virtual web housing, RIPE shoul * d * start checking the old assignments. * * Just my 0,02 * * Winfried * *
In message <6FA15EC018C1D211AA4C0008C70D033002C89D06@l3londmail02.eu.l3.com>, "Bhabuta, Denesh" writes:
You also don't take notice of the fact that RIPE have stated that they do not want us to update the RIPE database with our Dial-Up IPs, the majority of what you continually show in your little table...
I will agree with Sam's sentiments/comments here... RIPE indeed did say that and preferred to receive static verification tables once a week... well it was the case when I worked at Demon...
It doesn't change the fact that the RIPE database doesn't reflect reality. Adding ONE "ASSIGNED record, covering the entire range of addresses, stating in text that these addresses are used for bla bla bla, and that you can contact bla bla bla for actual information would make the RIPE database consistent and remove uk.demon from the list I pressume. I am sure that RIPE would ask Demon to maintain one record in the database per IP#, but I'm also sure that RIPE would not be against adding one record for the range. At least that is what they asked dk.cybercity to do for similar usage. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
participants (4)
-
Bhabuta, Denesh -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Winfried Haug