Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
Hi All, this ist the response of the RIPE Robot to one of our customers after he tried to create a reverse delegation object in the RIPE DB: "The RIPE NCC no longer accepts requests for creation and ammendments of reverse delegations which do not include the registry ID of an existing Local Internet Registry. If you are not a representative of an LIR, you should contact the LIR who assigned you the address space, or your upstream provider..." The customers owns his Provider Independent IP address space and is not able to create this object as he needs to state a reg-id in the request. Now this customers (and others in the past) claim that they have to apply to there upstream provider in order that this ISP creates the object. The customer certainly has is own maintainer. My question now: Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record. Best regards, Tanja Heimes -- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
Hi Tanja, There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users. LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come from them. Yours sincerely, Dominic Spratley, R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC At 09:45 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Tanja Heimes wrote:
Hi All,
this ist the response of the RIPE Robot to one of our customers after he tried to create a reverse delegation object in the RIPE DB:
"The RIPE NCC no longer accepts requests for creation and ammendments of reverse delegations which do not include the registry ID of an existing Local Internet Registry.
If you are not a representative of an LIR, you should contact the LIR who assigned you the address space, or your upstream provider..."
The customers owns his Provider Independent IP address space and is not able to create this object as he needs to state a reg-id in the request. Now this customers (and others in the past) claim that they have to apply to there upstream provider in order that this ISP creates the object. The customer certainly has is own maintainer.
My question now:
Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record.
Best regards,
Tanja Heimes
-- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com
Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
but RIPE gave the customer the space - it is PI space not PA space, the 'end customer' should be able to take care of their own space... -lyric On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dominic Spratley wrote:
Hi Tanja,
There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come from them.
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Spratley,
R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC
At 09:45 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Tanja Heimes wrote:
Hi All,
this ist the response of the RIPE Robot to one of our customers after he tried to create a reverse delegation object in the RIPE DB:
"The RIPE NCC no longer accepts requests for creation and ammendments of reverse delegations which do not include the registry ID of an existing Local Internet Registry.
If you are not a representative of an LIR, you should contact the LIR who assigned you the address space, or your upstream provider..."
The customers owns his Provider Independent IP address space and is not able to create this object as he needs to state a reg-id in the request. Now this customers (and others in the past) claim that they have to apply to there upstream provider in order that this ISP creates the object. The customer certainly has is own maintainer.
My question now:
Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record.
Best regards,
Tanja Heimes
-- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com
Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
------------------------------ lyric apted ip engineering manager, vipar lyric@verio.net 425.649.7491 ntt/verio ------------------------------
Hi Dominic, if my customer got PI space so he owns his own maintainer with its own authorization method. Why should he give me his password and why should I have to deal with failure messsages of the Marvin Robot and the Hostmasters and forward this messages out to the customer in order that he will correct his DNS settings. I face this problem many times that customers did not set up correctly their zones on their DNS servers. This is the problem of the customer that owns the PI space so why should a upstream provider that very often even did not arrange the PI space for this customer administer this records. The administartion of this things are wasting my time. I completely agree that for PA space RIPE does not deal with end-users - but I am still in the opionion that the policiy regarding PI space should be changed. If the customer owns PI space he should administer this space by himself even the reverse delegations. Best regards, Tanja Heimes lyric apted wrote:
but RIPE gave the customer the space - it is PI space not PA space, the 'end customer' should be able to take care of their own space...
-lyric
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dominic Spratley wrote:
Hi Tanja,
There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come from them.
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Spratley,
R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC
At 09:45 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Tanja Heimes wrote:
Hi All,
this ist the response of the RIPE Robot to one of our customers after he tried to create a reverse delegation object in the RIPE DB:
"The RIPE NCC no longer accepts requests for creation and ammendments of reverse delegations which do not include the registry ID of an existing Local Internet Registry.
If you are not a representative of an LIR, you should contact the LIR who assigned you the address space, or your upstream provider..."
The customers owns his Provider Independent IP address space and is not able to create this object as he needs to state a reg-id in the request. Now this customers (and others in the past) claim that they have to apply to there upstream provider in order that this ISP creates the object. The customer certainly has is own maintainer.
My question now:
Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record.
Best regards,
Tanja Heimes
-- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com
Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
------------------------------ lyric apted ip engineering manager, vipar lyric@verio.net 425.649.7491
ntt/verio ------------------------------
Hi all, Maybe it makes sense to cover PI assignments as zz.unspecified registry? This should not harm checking robot and/or end-user ;-) Regards, Rimas Janusauskas, Vilnius University Hostmaster On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dominic Spratley wrote:
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:00:28 +0200 From: Dominic Spratley <dominic@ripe.net> To: Tanja Heimes <theimes@de.cw.net> Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
Hi Tanja,
There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Spratley,
R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC
At 09:45 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Tanja Heimes wrote:
My question now:
Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record.
Best regards,
Tanja Heimes
Rimas, you mean - than end-users could use this zz.unspecified reg-id in order to perform reverse delegation records by themselves? Tanja Rimas Janusauskas wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe it makes sense to cover PI assignments as zz.unspecified registry?
This should not harm checking robot and/or end-user ;-)
Regards,
Rimas Janusauskas, Vilnius University Hostmaster
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dominic Spratley wrote:
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:00:28 +0200 From: Dominic Spratley <dominic@ripe.net> To: Tanja Heimes <theimes@de.cw.net> Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
Hi Tanja,
There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Spratley,
R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC
At 09:45 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Tanja Heimes wrote:
My question now:
Should Provider Indepent IP space not be 100% Provider Indepent in concern to its administration in the RIPE DB? In my opinion the RIPE Robot should distinguish between PA and PI space and not request an reg-id for customers that own PI space and like to create a reverse delegation record.
Best regards,
Tanja Heimes
-- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Tanja Heimes wrote:
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:34:34 +0200 From: Tanja Heimes <theimes@de.cw.net> To: Rimas Janusauskas <Rimas.Janusauskas@sc.vu.lt> Cc: Dominic Spratley <dominic@ripe.net>, lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
Rimas,
you mean - than end-users could use this zz.unspecified reg-id in order to perform reverse delegation records by themselves?
Tanja
Exactly! Dominic could correct me if I'm wrong: message with reverse address delegation reguest is checked for regID; if found, it's ckecked, do address space is allocated to the registry; if yes - further actions on reguest are taken. So, if introduce zz.unspecified RegID for PI address assignments, the described scheme should work. One more thing: section 5.3.4 of ripe-185 might be revised, if my proposal seems acceptable. Current statement: 5.3.4.Side Effects for PA/PI Assignments End users have a right to reverse mapping services. An end user holding non-PA address space from a zone that has been reverse delegated to one service provider is permitted to keep the address space, and obtain connectivity services from another provider. Because the address space falls in the reverse delegation zone of the initial Local IR, that IR is required to continue to provide reverse mapping services for the address space assigned to the end user. Moreover, the Local IR has to provide this service under the same conditions it applies to its other end users (e.g. extremely high fees for this service are unacceptable - unless they are applied to all end users.) IMHO, this is shortest way to eliminate contradiction. Best regards, Rimas
participants (5)
-
Dominic Spratley -
lyric apted -
Rimas Janusauskas -
Tanja Heimes -
Tanja Heimes