August 2003 - ncc-services-wg

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
by Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Dear Wilfried, Hank, On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >Section 5: > >"Incident Response Service (IRS) > >Procedures will be set up to quickly provide RIPE NCC members, the Internet > >community and the general public with authoritative data about unusual > >events on the Internet, such as DDoS on the RIPE NCC." I wrote this sentence and the paragraphs before them and, with all due respect, but I think that Hank cut away too much text here. > 1) can we have a more elaborate description from the NCC of what > activities are expected to be performed under this headline? These lines are part of a larger piece of text describing the Information Services (IS) activity. The goal of the IS activity is to collect statistical data on the Internet, ranging from individual providers (for example, RIS and TTM) via policy making groups (AP-WG on usage of resources), the Internet community (for example: number of AS's and prefixes seen) to the general public. Collecting the data alone is not sufficient, of course, we also want to make sure that the statistics we collect reaches the appropriate people in a timely manner. A subset of the IS activity is therefore to have procedures in place to distribute reports on data (analysis) quickly if the need arises. It is obviously not a goal to repeat what others are already doing quite well. However, the RIPE NCC has data that others do not have, and this we want to distribute. For example, earlier this year, we published a report on the impact of the sapphire worm on the Internet. Another example is a recent discussion on heise.de, on the unreachability on the .at ccTLD from the Telecom Austria network, involving some fingerpointing. NIC.AT already published the plots, but this could have been another case where we'd publish our data in order to (in)validate a claim. > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? As soon as the AP2004 is approved, we (Daniel K and myself) will write an implementation document, describing the activities proposed under section 5 in more detail. This document will be circulated to, I'd guess, the services-WG and discussed there. Cheers, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(a)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

11 21

The New "organisation object" Proposal
by DB-News 03 Sep '03

03 Sep '03

Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate messages] Following discussions at the RIPE NCC about a new Whois Database object, the organisation object, we have modified the previous proposal that you can find at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00013.html The main changes from the previous proposal are: - a "country:" attribute is added. - "org-type:" and "org-name:" attributes are added, and "organisation:" attribute is now a NIC handle, which will be automatically assigned during the creation of the object. The motivation for this is explained in Section 3 of the proposal. - Hierarchical names can be removed, mainly for simplicity. - Differing query results on the whois server introduced in section 5. According to this, the relevant organisation objects are appended to the query results (because the organisation that holds the resource is at least as important as the person/role objects mentioned in the resource object). Please let us know your comments and concerns about the new proposal attached to this mail. Thanks for your time and best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group An organisation object in the RIPE Database -------------------------------------------- 1. Motivation ------------------- Currently the RIPE Database stores two main types of contact information: person and role objects. The person and role objects provide a way to contact people responsible for operations or usage of the resources represented in the RIPE Database (IP blocks, autonomous systems, and domain names). However, none of these provide an easy way of mapping resources to a particular organisation. A user must first find an object containing contact information for that organisation. Then, assuming all of the organisation's objects refer to this contact information, the user must perform an inverse query to obtain a list of objects referencing the specified person or role. This indirect process can be somewhat obscure and therefore a request for a more direct way of attaching an object to an organisation is seen as a useful addition to the RIPE Database. This document is a proposal for an organisation object in the RIPE Database and the necessary database functionality. 2. The organisation object ----------------------- The organisation object provides information identifying an organisation such as a company, charity or university, that is a holder of a network resource whose data is stored in the RIPE Database. The organisation object is identified by a unique ID specified in the "organisation:" attribute which is the primary key. An organisation object can be referenced from other types of objects using an "org:" attribute. All objects associated with a particular organisation can be retrieved by performing an "inverse query" for the organisation's ID (handle) used in the "org:" attribute of database objects. Following is a template for the proposed organisation object and an example. All attributes except the "ref-nfy:", "organisation:", "org-name:" and "org-type:" have their usual meanings. organisation: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] org-name: [mandatory] [single] [look-up key] org-type: [mandatory] [single] [ ] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ] address: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] country: [mandatory] [single] [ ] phone: [optional] [multiple] [ ] fax-no: [optional] [multiple] [ ] e-mail: [mandatory] [multiple] [look-up key] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] ref-nfy: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] mnt-by: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] source: [mandatory] [single] [ ] 3. New attributes ---------------------- "organisation:" Specifies the ID of an organisation object. An organisation ID is made up of 'ORG-' prefix, followed by 2 to 4 letters, digits, a dash and is followed by the database source (in the RIPE Whois Database this is 'RIPE'). For example: ORG-RT34-RIPE Note that all parts are mandatory, thus ORG-RT-RIPE would be an invalid ID as it is missing the numeric part. Organisation object IDs are auto-generated similar to the way person/role "nic-hdl:" attributes are auto-generated. The user has to specify the ID of an organisation object as ORG-AUTO-<digit> during creation of the object, then it will be assigned an appropriate ID. The organisation ID is assigned using the "org-name:" attribute of the object. The user can specify the letter combination he/she prefers. For example if the user wants TTR as the letter combination, in the organisation ID, then ORG-AUTO-1TTR should be put into "organisation:" attribute during the creation of the object. The organisation ID cannot be reused. If an organisation ID was used in the past by an organisation object and then deleted, this ID cannot be used in new organisation objects. The auto-generation of organisation IDs and preventing reuse of them simplifies the external references. Note that when an organisation changes name, the "org-name:" can be modified accordingly. There is no need to change the organisation ID. "org-name:" Specifies the name of the organisation that this organisation object represents in the whois database. This is an ASCII-only text attribute. The restriction is because this attribute is a look-up key and the whois protocol does not allow specifying character sets in queries. The user can put the name of the organisation in non-ASCII character sets in the "descr:" attribute if required. "org-type:" Specifies the type of the organisation. The possible values are 'IANA' for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, 'RIR' for Regional Internet Registries, 'NIR' for National Internet Registries, 'LIR' for Local Internet Registries, and 'NON-REGISTRY' for all other organisations. "ref-nfy:" Specifies the e-mail address to be notified when a reference to the organisation object is added or removed. An e-mail address as defined in RFC 2822. [This functionality is used in the "irt-nfy:". The name of this attribute is more neutral allowing reuse in other object types.] "country:" Specifies the two-letter ISO3166 country code of the country where this organisation resides. "address:" Specifies the address of the organisation. This is a free-text attribute. "org:" May be included in any other object type. It points to an existing organisation object representing the entity that holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. 4. Authorisation checks ---------------------------------- When modifying an organisation object the update must pass authorisation checks specified by one of the mntners listed in the "mnt-by:" attributes of the organisation object. When adding an "org:" attribute to an object, the update of the object should pass the following authorisation checks: - from one of the maintainers of the organisation object - from one of the maintainers of the object being updated 5. Query changes ---------------- If a whois query returns an object with an "org:" attribute, the organisation object mentioned in this attribute is also appended to the query results. This behaviour can be disabled by using the '-r' flag in the query. 6. Examples ------------ A basic organisation object: organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE org-name: Random Street Internet Services org-type: LIR descr: An example organisation address: Random St. city: Amsterdam country: NL phone: +31 123 4567 fax-no: +31 123 4568 e-mail: contact(a)example-org.net admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE notify: ripe-mailbox(a)example-org.net ref-nfy: ripe-mailbox(a)example-org.net mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT changed: someguy(a)example-org.net 20030121 source: RIPE A network that references an organisation object: inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 descr: Sample network org: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE country: NL admin-c: JE1-RIPE tech-c: JE2-RIPE status: ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT mnt-lower: EXAMPLE-MNT changed: someguy(a)example-org.net 20030122 source: RIPE A query for this inetnum object: % whois 192.168.86.251 inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 descr: Sample network org: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE country: NL admin-c: JE1-RIPE tech-c: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE org-name: Random Street Internet Services org-type: LIR descr: An example organisation address: Random St. address: The Netherlands phone: +31 123 4567 fax-no: +31 123 4568 e-mail: contact(a)example-org.net admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example nic-hdl: JE1-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example Jr nic-hdl: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE

12 20

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal
by Dominic Spratley 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Hi Christian, Sascha, You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list. We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy. This new set of forms is intended to reduce the burden on both the LIRs and the RIPE NCC. By reducing the administrative burden we hope to allow LIRs to access our services faster and improve the level of service we are able to offer. One of the ways we have attempted to reduce the burden on LIRs is by removing the Current Address Space Usage template in requests for IPv4 space. The template was fairly difficult for LIRs to complete. However, while the template has been replaced, the principle it represents - conservation - remains. That is why we ask whether the End Users has address space that can already meet the needs of this request. The situation with regard to address space that is being returned has not changed in these forms. We realise that many enterprises are not fully aware of the address space they use. To help LIR in these situations we have a Glimpse index of the database available. It can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/db/whois-free.html> The LIR remains responsible for ensuring that assignments are justified and that address space that should be returned is returned. This remains the same. Nonetheless, LIRs must still ensure that the assignments they make are justified. That means that they need to gather appropriate justification. We introduced a template asking about the equipment being used by the End User to help us understand requests faster. We often received requests for fairly large amounts of address space for vaguely described "network devices" or "LAN segments". The information provided was not sufficient for us to evaluate the request. As such the Hostmaster would need to ask the LIR for additional information. This would delay the request. We hope that the introduction of this new template will help us evaluate requests more quickly and improve the level of service we offer you. It is possible to put "N/A" in the equipment template fields but the Hostmaster might need that information to understand your request and ask you to supply it. This would delay things for you. We understand that it may not always be possible to include useful information in this template. However, we believe that the template will have a broadly positive effect on the level of service we can offer. You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the RIPE NCC has not yet made yet 250 IPv6 allocations. Our experience with IPv6 networks is limited and we need network operators to show us how they intend to use IPv6 address space in their networks. Secondly, the current IPv6 policy does not allow stockpiling of IPv6 address space. One way of distinguishing a genuine request from one that is intended for stockpiling reasons is to request a diagram showing how the address space will be used. It doesn't have to be a a fancy diagram. It's also fine to fax a hand-drawn diagram instead of sending one by e-mail. When we have more experience with IPv6 I expect we will make the diagram optional. Finally, we agree with you that many LIRs are not aware of the difference between PA and PI address space. This is unfortunate and has several roots: many LIRs have a large number of staff that change regularly. Also, many people find the difference between PA and PI rather arcane and difficult to understand. We try to address the former issue through LIR Training Courses and by making policy documents clearer to read. We've made updates to all the RIPE community's policy documents over the last few months. The IPv4 policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for review by the community, now. It can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv4-policies.html> We have also taken a look at the wording used to distinguish between PA and PI. We would like to make the distinction more apparent to the untrained eye. We have published initial proposals on changes to the status attribute value names and are co-ordinating with APNIC on this work. We hope to make it easier for everyone to understand the status of address space. There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more responsive to your needs than in the past. Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request process to make it easier and faster in the future. Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions. regards, Dominic Spratley, Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
by azucena.hernandezperez＠telefonica.es 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional identification of each organisation by a number making it a separate object in the database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU countries. Azucena Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no> Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin(a)ripe.net 29/08/03 19:17 Para: Engin Gunduz <engin(a)ripe.net> cc: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no>, DB-News <db-news(a)ripe.net>, <db-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal Clasificación: Uso Interno > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > be used to point users to web pages etc. I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name changes. Hans Petter ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________

6 5

another attribute for organisation object
by Engin Gunduz 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Dear colleagues, >From the feedback we've got, it looks like we want another attribute in the organisation object, in which users can put an "organisation number" or an "organisation-id". This can be a VAT number, or a number assigned by a certain Chamber of Commerce, or any kind of other ID. We would propose calling it "business-id:". We have thought of "org-id:" but the org-ID is the string we will have in "organisation:" attribute, so calling another attribute "org-id:" would be confusing. "national-id:" would have been another idea, but some IDs might not be a national one, like an ID assigned uniquely in the EU. So the proposal is to add business-id: [optional] [multiple] as a new attribute. It is optional, as an organisation might not have such an ID. It is multiple, because an organisation might have multiple such IDs. Thanks and best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by azucena.hernandezperez＠telefonica.es 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

On the issue of electronic voting, I add the following information: - "voting by correspondence" is legally identical that "voting by presence" in Spain in all kind of elections. For the time being the way of implementing the voting by correspondence is by traditional postal services but the change into electronic voting is under study. - the officially recognised European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) legally established in France implements the following voting procedures: a) for the approval of standards: ONLY online approval and therefore no proxies allowed. b) for decisions taken by the Board: voting during Board meetings and ALSO online voting when the decision can not be postponed till the next Board meeting. No proxies allowed. c) for decisions taken by the General Assembly (similar to the RIPE NCC AGM): voting by presence and by proxy. Voting by correspondence is legally considered in the Statutes but is has never been implemented. In addition to the previous methods all legally valid, ETSI uses very often what we call "indicative voting" which is similar to the "show of hands" in a meeting but electronically. It is a useful way of getting views from people that are normally silent in the email debates but have, nevertheless, a view when they face a specific question to which they must say "yes" or "no". Kind regards, Azucena Axel Pawlik <axel.pawlik(a)ripe.net> Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin(a)ripe.net 28/08/03 20:51 Para: Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com>, ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net cc: Asunto: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Clasificación: Uso Interno At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the >chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote >as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and >it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle. Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup. cheers, Axel ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
by Bovio＠aol.com 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net writes: > I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE > NCC. > > I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the > bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This > is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals > like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. > Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and > more often I do not agree with *how* things are done. > > What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of > all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. > I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. > I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the > differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. > Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or > improvements does not help. > I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele

23 91

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by Bovio＠aol.com 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

In a message dated 20/08/03 17:34:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se writes: Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. Folks, Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as possible to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic voting is not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is the only viable form. Cheers Daniele

7 7

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Enhancing members involvements in NCC-Services-WG and RIPE NCC General Meetings
by Axel Pawlik 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

Thank you Azucena for your ideas, I'll make sure that I pick them up next week. At 28/08/2003 18:01 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez(a)telefonica.es wrote: >Finally I have a question to make. Is this email list (ncc-services-wg) >only available for RIPE NCC members? I guess so but I am not sure. Please >confirm. No, this working group is open to the whole community, as many RIPE NCC services are not restricted to the membership. I'm sorry that we won't see you next week. kind regards, Axel

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal
by Christian Rasmussen 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

Hi Hans, The question is how complex an evaluation must be? The facts needed to evaluate a normal IP requests are simply the number of nodes needing a public IP address. In case one or more nodes needs more than 1 IP address then documentation is needed to explain why to exceed the normal rules, also in case the expected growth pr. year exceeds 100%. It would of course be easier to falsify the number of nodes than to falsify the documentation, but in case an end user intends to falsify information in order to get more IP addresses than justifyable, then I don't see any easy way to prevent this. But is there actually any other reasons for extensive documentation? Who benefits from the work all LIRs are obligated to perform by gathering this documentation? If normal requests did not need any documentation it would make it MUCH easier for all LIRs and of course for the customers who would not need to take the time to answer a lot of complex questions. If you as an end user only had to document your needs in case you were trying to get more IP addresses than normal justifyable, then it would probably also discourage a lot of the unserious requests. I would find it reasonable if larger requests still required some form of documentation, for example /24 and above. But it would of course still be very important for all LIRs to stress that the information received from the enduser must be correct. This proposal probably goes against one of the basic goals; conservation, but is it reasonable to spend so many ressources on conserving IP addresses when we actually don't have any immediate problem? Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc(a)jay.net Personal email: chr(a)corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen > Sent: 29. august 2003 12:52 > To: Sascha Lenz > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: > updated and available on LIR Portal > > > > BUT... information like the equipment being used or a network > > plan or so _must_ be optional information, not _required_ information. > > It can't be that a company is _required_ to make statements about > > their network and equipment if they want to have IP-Adresses! > > (and no, RIPE doesn't always qualify for receiving such information). > > This indeed an interesting point of view. It has been the practice for as > long as I can remember for the RIPE NCC to ask for documnetation for the > need for IP addresses. > > Is there strong support in the community to remove this cirteria ? > > If not, how should the LIR/RIR verify this criteria ? > > Best Regards, > > Hans Petter > >

1 0