Hi Bill (and Suzane and the robot :-)!
As far as I can tell, RIPE NCC was never delegated this block.
I think that's not *completely* true. At least (a small) part of 192 addresses was allocated in Europe by way of the RIPE-NCC and the Local Internet Registries. Quoting from an old RIPE NCC Quarterly Report (Issue 8, March 1994, ripe-116), this involves at least - 192.162/16 "Various assignments" 192.164/16 "EUnet/AT" (Austria) 192.165/16 "NORDUnet" (Scandinavia) 192.166/16 "DE-NIC" (Germany) 192.167/16 "GARR NIS" (Italy) ( 192.168/16 "RIPE NCC - RFC 1597" )
People are, of course, free to register their delegations, from what ever source, into their routing registry of choice. The intent was to use the authoritative delegation registry to verify use.
Formally, I agree. Although, in real life, people tend to update registry information at the "nearby" database where the networks are used. In Europe that's even more intuitive, because the same database is used to register address allocations/assignments, routing policy and domains... What hits us here is the fact that we still don't have regular updates performed between the "major" rgistries. While we (the RIPE Databse WG and the NCC) are still trying to get this sorted out, progress in the past was much slower than desirable. You might even be able to promote that idea...
Now this points out a couple of interesting things:
- The InterNic data could be better organized. For those organiziations which have been delegated consecutive /24s, an effort could/should be made to have the InterNic recast these delegations as a single CIDR entry instead of the component parts. This is being followed up on with the InterNic. (Reduces the number of queries that you see)
- If the idea of using the same delegation and routing registry appeals to you, you may want to consider how to return those old, nasty 192 delegations and use the clean blocks from the RIPE NCC. (Here is where PIER might be of help)
Wearing my hat as the RIPE Database WG coordinator, could you please point me to the proper place (and procedures) to participate in that effort(s). Thanks Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bill (and Suzane and the robot :-)!
Howdy... :)
As far as I can tell, RIPE NCC was never delegated this block.
I think that's not *completely* true. At least (a small) part of 192 addresses was allocated in Europe by way of the RIPE-NCC and the Local Internet Registries.
True, and the contacts for the folks will be getting the can'ed email. This points out a minor problem with the earlier SWIP efforts: Taking the first block on your list: 192.162/16 "Various assignments" 36% whois 192.162 RIPE NCC (NETBLK-EUNET-C) EUNET-C 192.162.0.0 - 192.162.255.0 Research Institute for Informatics (NET-RO-EARN) RO-EARN 192.162.16.0 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-1) CCDINET-C5-1 192.162.128.0 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-2) CCDINET-C5-2 192.162.129.0 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-3) CCDINET-C5-3 192.162.130.0 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-4) CCDINET-C5-4 192.162.131.0 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-5) CCDINET-C5-5 192.162.132.0 Thats seven queries. The last five could/should be consolidated into a cidr entries, like the first one. 192.167/16 "GARR NIS" (Italy) This one is even worse.... :-( ( 192.168/16 "RIPE NCC - RFC 1597" ) And this is one simply appears to be a marker 38% whois 192.168 IANA (IANA-CBLK-RESERVED) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 Netname: IANA-CBLK1 Netblock: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.0
was to use the authoritative delegation registry to verify use.
Formally, I agree.
What hits us here is the fact that we still don't have regular updates performed between the "major" rgistries. You might even be able to promote that idea...
Interesting point. This is being hashed out with the folks doing routing registries as well. (there are a few more of them :-) At least there is a syncronization method (albeit a poor one) in that venue. Perhaps there should be a strict rule on each IR (delegation registry) only recording data that it is authoritative for? We then raise the pointy questions of authority transfer, granularity of update, validation of "guardian/maintainer", and a host of others. And life is harder when we have multiple models on support of the delegation and announcement registries.
- If the idea of using the same delegation and routing registry appeals to you, you may want to consider how to return those old, nasty 192 delegations and use the clean blocks from the RIPE NCC. (Here is where PIER might be of help)
Wearing my hat as the RIPE Database WG coordinator, could you please point me to the proper place (and procedures) to participate in that effort(s).
Thanks Wilfried.
Sure. PIER is an IETF WG. See http://www.isi.edu:80/div7/pier/ for more details. --bill
participants (2)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet