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

2012-07 Last Call for Comments (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-07, RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders, is now in its Concluding Phase. The RIPE NCC Services Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 17 December 2013 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net before 17 December 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-07 RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders - moving to last call
by Bijal Sanghani 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Greetings colleagues, The NCC Services working group co-chairs have concluded that policy proposal 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders will now move to last call, we believe consensus has been reached. During the last call phase the community still has an opportunity to present any sound objections that may have been missed in the previous two phases. Marco will send a mail shortly with full details of the last call shortly. Best regards, Kurtis and Bijal NCC Services WG co-chairs

1 0

RIPE Database Release 1.70
by Denis Walker 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The new release 1.70 of the RIPE Database was deployed to the TEST Database environment on Thursday, 31 October 2013 and is now ready to be deployed to the production database. The deployment will commence at 20:00 (UTC+1) on Thursday, 14 November 2013 and may take up to three hours to complete. During this time, updates will not be available. Any email updates submitted during this period will be queued. Updates by any other means will return an error message. Queries will not be affected during this deployment. The reason for the outage is an operational clean-up that the RIPE NCC has to do occasionally on the RIPE Database. Some long-since deprecated objects and attributes will be removed from the SQL table structure. This clean-up will not cause any visible change to users. The clean-up was done on the TEST Database during the deployment of 1.70 in October. Regards Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07
by Andrew de la Haye 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, In this email thread, the RIPE NCC was asked to provide a cost estimate for the implementation of policy proposal 2012-07. The estimated total costs for implementation of this proposal are between 100 kEUR and 350 kEUR, spread out over several years. These costs include things such as setting up the appropriate fields in the RIPE Database, internal software development, and administrative overhead - including creating the appropriate legal contracts. Whether the actual costs are closer to the upper or lower end of this estimate will be determined by how many legacy holders decide to enter into a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. The smaller estimate reflects 25% of legacy holders, while the larger estimate represents 100% of legacy holders deciding to enter into a contractual relationship. Note also that these costs have not been offset against the additional income that would likely come as the result of some legacy holders deciding to become RIPE NCC members. There are obvious parallels between implementation of this policy and the implementation of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC". However, the overall number of organisations and Internet number resources related to this proposal is lower. Also, it is optional, rather than mandatory, for organisations to enter into a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. For this reason, the operational and financial impact of implementation will be considerably lower. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Database Release 1.70 Available
by Denis Walker 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce that we will deploy a new release of the RIPE Database to the TEST Database environment on Thursday, 31 October 2013. The release is scheduled for production deployment on Thursday, 12 November 2013. Detailed information about the new release, including dates and information about the changes, can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/ripe-database-release-1.70 Of special note in this release is the inclusion of "pending route authentication". This is an alternative and simplified way of authorising route object creation. Two separate updates for a single route/route6 object are treated as one create request. This has no impact on users who still submit a complete route object with all authorisations included. If you have any questions or comments, we look forward to hearing them. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

1 1

2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Gilles Massen 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Dear all, I support proposal 2012-07's adoption as policy. It seems fairly balanced and should provide an option for every LRH without putting unacceptable load on the RIPE NCC (or its members). Thanks to the authors. Best regards, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473

1 0

is IPv4 address solicitation compatible with DB AUP or spam?
by Wilfried Woeber 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Well, "it" seems to take off, we keep getting solicitations for IPv4 address transfer to (presumably) all contact addresses linked to in our resource objects. Some of these messages are from an idividual who seemingly is advertising for at least 2 different brokers. So here's my question: is that sort of spamming compatible with the DB-AUP? How about some sort of opt-out tag, telling everyone and her dog: "no, don't bother to ask, we won't give you our addresses"? Thanks, Wilfried

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Tore Anderson 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi WG, Clarifying the "legal" status of the legacy holders without taking away any of their pre-existing rights is an improvement over the current undefined and ad-hoc practices, and I think it will likely cause a positive incentive for these organisations to actively participate in the community and to keep their registry entries accurate, which is a benefit not only to the legacy holders themselves and the RIPE NCC and its membership, but the entire internet and routing communities as a whole. I believe 2012-07 accomplishes the above while striking a decent balance between the interests of all involved parties. That said, I do not see the purpose of section 2.4 «Option to engage directly with the RIPE NCC». Section 2.2 «Option to become a RIPE NCC member» seems to me to accomplish the same thing, only without requiring a new contract class to be established. Having only two options (full member, or registered via a sponsoring LIR) would maintain consistency with current operational practices regarding PI assignments, and would reduce the operational impact of this policy as existing business structures and practices already instated for PI holders could be re-used for legacy holders. For this reason I will likely vote against the creation of such a special contract option at the AGM. Nor do I see the purpose of section 2.5 «When there are obstacles for 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4», as section 2.6 «No relationship» seems to cover this case. Perhaps it's only my imagination being limited, but the only likely "obstacle" I can envision here is that the resource holder cannot produce adequate proof of ownership, and in that case section 2.6 ("the status quo, but no more") seems like the the most reasonable way to proceed. I'd certainly be opposed to the RIPE NCC unilaterally having to "confirm" such unproved ownership, e.g., by providing certification services, in the same way as if ownership was properly proven according to the provisions in sections 2.1 through 2.4. That said, the Impact Analysis seems to me to say that section 2.5 would be implemented in pretty much the same way as section 2.6, so I suppose there is no real cause for concern here even though the policy text itself makes me somewhat uneasy. So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5 be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a net benefit. Therefore: Support. Tore (a RIPE NCC member who holds no legacy resources)

1 1

2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by JÁKÓ András 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

Dear Colleagues, I support proposal 2012-07's adoption as a RIPE policy. Thanks for the work of the authors! András

1 0

Asking Used IPs Monitoring Methods
by Jahangir Asadi 02 Nov '13

02 Nov '13

Dear Sir or Madam I have some customers who I have dedicated high band width a wide ranges of IPv4 addresses to them. Because of lack of IPv4, I would like to see that how many IPs they are using. It would be grateful if you tell me how can I do this and what soft ware I have to use to monitor the used IPs. I would like to thank you in advance and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Regards. Jahangir Asadi Network Manager of Padidar Information Technology (Your LIR Member and the owner of AS198357)

1 0