April 2014 - ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

The Beta Version of the New DNSMON is Now Available
by Vesna Manojlovic 08 Sep '14

08 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The DNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON) has been providing a comprehensive, objective and up-to-date overview of the quality of various global and regional DNS operators' services since 2003. We are in the process of integrating DNSMON within RIPE Atlas and the beta version of the new DNSMON is now publicly available: https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon We have also published a RIPE Labs article detailing what’s changed in the new DNSMON: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fatemah_mafi/an-updated-dns-monitoring-service We invite you all to try the new service and provide your feedback. We’re confident that the new DNSMON will continue to meet your needs and hope that you'll be happy with the new features. Please send your comments and questions to the DNS Working Group Mailing List at dns-wg(a)ripe.net. Kind regards, Vesna Manojlovic Measurements Community Building RIPE NCC

5 5

RIPE Database Release 1.73
by Denis Walker 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the RIPE Database software release 1.73 to the Release Candidate (RC) environment. For information about features, changes and how this release might affect your operations, please see the release notes: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/ripe-database-release-1.73 Major features introduced in this release include the: -Addition of a "sponsoring-org:" attribute for End User resources -Addition of a "status:" attribute for all AUT-NUM objects -Change of "status:" values for all legacy (early registration) INETNUM objects to 'LEGACY' This release also fixes a number of issues. More details are available in the release notes. Where necessary, data in the RC Database has been changed to reflect the new/changed attributes. Please check your data and test your implementation in the RC environment. More information about the RC environment is available online: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/rc-release-candidate-envir… We look forward to any questions or comments you might have. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

1 0

NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 68
by Bijal Sanghani 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

Greetings, Please see below and online draft agenda for the NCC Services WG. https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/services-wg/ === Date: Wednesday 14 May 2014 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 67 B. Hijacking and Due Diligence - Andrew de la Haye and Athina Fragkouli (35 minutes) C. RIPE NCC Update - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. External Relations Update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) E. Do we need more audting on RIPE NCC projects? RIPE ATLAS example - Piotr Strzyżewski, (10 mins) F. Report on 2007-01 - Andrea Cima, RIPE NCC (10 minutes) G. Policy Implementation Report: - 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders - 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Resources - 2013-04 - Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members - NCC Services WG Chair (5 minutes) H. Open Microphone Session Z. AOB === See you in Warsaw! Best regards, NCC Services WG Chairs

1 0

2012-07's direct engagement option
by Tore Anderson 28 Apr '14

28 Apr '14

First of all I'd like to congratulate the proposal authors and the WG for having finally brought the legacy space out of the "legal vacuum" it was residing in. Well done! The agenda for May's General Meeting was recently published[1] and as expected one of the points is about 2012-07's implementation plan[2]. Keeping in line with section 2.4 of the proposal[3], the plan proposes to implement a new [non-]membership class where I assume the [non-]member in question will only receive services relating to their legacy resources, but not the rest of the services normally offered to RIPE NCC members / LIRs. I do get a strong sense of déjà vu here - isn't this pretty much exactly the same membership class as the Direct Assignment User ("DAU") that was first introduced by proposal 2007-01 and subsequently scrapped by the General Meeting in September 2012[4]? Is there any conceivable scenario were a legacy holder would prefer to become a DAU over becoming a full member? I cannot think of one - as I understand it, a full member would be provided with all the services a DAU would (and more), at a lower cost[5]. Why would anyone want to pay more for less? I believe we made the right choice in scrapping the original DAU membership class. We now have a extremely simple and easy to understand membership structure, and a predictable charging scheme. Therefore I currently have a problem with voting for the Board's proposed implementation plan as I see it as a regression. That said, I am open to be persuaded why we do need another "DAU" membership class for legacy holders. So if anyone know of a compelling rationale for section 2.4, please help me out here... Tore [1] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/agenda [2] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/Prop… [3] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-605#2-4-option-to-engage-directly-with-t… [4] http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-charg… [5] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/Char…

16 60

Charges for legacy holders
by Nigel Titley 26 Apr '14

26 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, I'd like to provide some background on the Executive Board's decision to propose the provisions regarding charges for legacy holders in the 2015 Charging Scheme. The board discussed these at length and wanted to achieve a balance between meeting the needs of legacy holders and meeting the needs of RIPE NCC members, who the board is tasked with representing. First of all, the four options in the Charging Scheme regarding legacy space correspond directly to the four options (sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) in Policy Proposal 2012-07: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 Option 2.4, according to the proposal, is for those legacy holders who meet the criteria to engage with a sponsoring LIR "but cannot find a Sponsoring LIR with which a mutually satisfactory contract of the kind mentioned in that section". The board sees this option as being for legacy holders who are*unable* to find a sponsoring LIR rather than those who*do not want* to find a sponsoring LIR. The fourth option in the Charging Scheme addresses this need to provide a direct contract for those who cannot find a sponsoring LIR with which to engage. For the RIPE NCC to provide this option, a new category of service provision will have to be established. Aside from the legal and administrative work involved, the RIPE NCC's support, operating and business systems will need to be updated. The board feels that membership should not fully subsidise the cost of this work but that the costs should mainly rest with those for whom the service is being provided. The work involved in bringing legacy holders into the membership requires little work on the RIPE NCC's part by comparison, hence the waiving of the sign-up fee. The board is also keen to keep the Charging Scheme in line with the "one-LIR, one fee" principle accepted by the membership in 2012. By charging the same fee for LIRs and those legacy holders who would like to have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, the board believes that this does not put the RIPE NCC in a position where it is competing with its members. In 2011, when the RIPE NCC previously charged Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) who wished to have a contract directly with the RIPE NCC rather than a sponsoring LIR, the DAUs were charged the same sign-up fee as members as well as an annual fee of 1,300 euros (the same as an Extra Small LIR at the time). We believe the proposed Charging Scheme 2015 follows this precedent. The board will set aside as much time as is necessary at the upcoming General Meeting to discuss the issue of charging for services to legacy holders. If the membership feels the Charging Scheme 2015 is not acceptable and decides to vote against it, the board will discuss the issue over the Summer and present a new Charging Scheme 2015 at the Autumn GM in London. The 1,600 euro fee for LIRs proposed in the Charging Scheme would remain the same, so members can still budget for the year ahead. On a separate note, the proposed implementation plan for the RIPE Policy "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet resource Holders" deals with the contractual changes necessary for the RIPE NCC to implement new processes and is independent of charging issues. I hope this helps you to understand the board's thinking in proposing the charging scheme. We will continue to follow discussions on the mailing list and look forward to hearing your views at the RIPE NCC Service Working Group and the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 14 May. If you would like to contact the board directly, you can email us at <exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

3 4

RPKI Certification for PI End Users pre-production launch
by Alex Band 23 Apr '14

23 Apr '14

Hello everyone, We are getting close to the production launch of Resource Certification (RPKI) for Provider Independent End User space. Last week, we started testing with a small number of users to see if the system was behaving as desired. This was a success, and the first certificates and ROAs for PI space have been published using the production system. As there are quite some corner cases with PI space, we’d like to open up the testing group a bit more, so we can make sure we iron out any quirks before we go live. If you’d like to request a certificate and create ROAs for your PI End User address space, please contact me and we’ll guide you through the process. At the moment, you’ll have to take some manual steps. When we launch we’ll have an easy to use wizard available to help you. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
by Janos Zsako 22 Apr '14

22 Apr '14

Dear Sascha, [I am still investigating why my mailer sent two empty mails to the list. I suspect this is due to some special character in the message I was replying to. I am sorry for the inconvenience.] >> The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging scheme: "Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not have to pay a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming a LIR is a flat one-off EUR 2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement. > > At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of > these legacy resources I am afraid I do not understand why you think the charging scheme could help the RIPE NCC gain control over legacy resources. To my understanding, all legacy resources would be marked as "legacy" irrespective of the fact that the holder (1) becomes a member, (2) is already a member an extends the contract to cover the legacy resources as well, (3) uses a sponsoring LIR, (4) enters in direct contractual relationship wit the NCC or (5) does not sign any contract at all. The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged "No contract". Best regards, Janos > (whereas the goal of 2012-07, AIUI, is to ensure > a way to keep resources registered, without the holders giving up > control). IMO this implementation negates many of the changes that came > out of the long debate on this proposal... > > rgds, > Sascha Luck

2 2

Implementation plan for 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders"
by Xavier Le Bris 17 Apr '14

17 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has updated the implementation plan for ripe-605 "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" (accepted policy proposal 2012-07): https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… The implementation that specifically relates to the RIPE Database has been updated in line with these revisions: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… We have revised this plan so that all AUT-NUM and parent legacy Internet resource holders will be notified of status changes in one batch. These notifications will be sent when the software is deployed to the Resource Candidate (RC) Test Environment. When the software is deployed to production, after RIPE 68, all status values will be generated or set on the same day. Notifying all resource holders in the same, single batch ensures consistency and accuracy across the entries in the RIPE Database. The process of contacting all resource holders in multiple batches would have been a more time-consuming and drawn out process. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or feedback. Kind regards, Xavier Le Bris IP Resource Analyst

1 0

Question about AW history in the LIR Portal
by Erik Bais 09 Apr '14

09 Apr '14

Hi, Having seen the email from Alex on Monday in regards to the changes about invalids in the ASUSED report, the question that came to my mind is what the (future) use is for: - Assignment Window (and history) >From what we see, is that the RIPE NCC is currently adjusting the tools (Like the Portal and APIs) for the 2013-03 implementation. I think that is a good thing and I would like to ask here in the group if there are people who require their AW status or history from the past, now that there is no need for justification. For all I care you can assign your complete allocation for 1 customer as long as you document it properly in the database The same probably goes for the list of Assignments Made by RIPE NCC in the Portal the approved assignments outside your AW by the RIPE NCC hostmasters. Obviously it is nice for historic reference .. however .. is it needed ? Is it required for future use ? These could be removed imho and people can document them in the database themselves and it will make the way that we look as assignments within PA space a lot easier I think. Perhaps it is currently still required for audit reasons by the IPRAs ? But if we are getting rid of the invalids .. why not get rid of the AW and RIPE Approved Assignments as well ? Regards, Erik Bais

1 0

Assisted Registry Check - First Results
by Matt Parker 08 Apr '14

08 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, In the final quarter of 2013, the RIPE NCC launched the Assisted Registry Check (ARC) for our members. This enhancement to the RIPE NCC's audit activities was initiated after feedback from members indicated that our earlier audit process could do with some improvement. The initial group of Assisted Registry Checks were concluded in the first quarter of 2014 and the RIPE NCC has carried out an in-depth review of the feedback we received. The results of this review have now been published in the following RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/matt_parker/assisted-registry-check-first-res… We have also incorporated this feedback into our procedures for future Assisted Registry Checks, to ensure they remain useful and relevant for our members. If you would like to volunteer for an Assisted Registry Check, please send an email to <lir-help(a)ripe.net> and we will contact you with further details. Kind regards, Matt Parker Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0