- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Re: IAB's proposals in response to the work of the ROAD group
by raresec＠rare.nl 02 Sep '92

02 Sep '92

>Since there has been only one (positive) reaction so far, may I conclude >that RIPE as a whole is supporting the IAB position? I am wondering >how many people have read it and thought "If I don't oppose it is clear >that I agree". So please if you are in favour or of RIPE supporting this, >send me a personal mail message. I'll count them and report back to the list. > >Daniel Daniel, I don't think that I can either support or oppose the IAB position. I have been following the Big-Internet discussion for a few weeks now, and I still don't believe that I sufficiently understand all the issues to give a considered opinion. This applies both to "purely technical" issues, and "mainly operational/political" issues, and all issues in between. (I'm not even sure this is a one-dimensional space :-)). There does not even seem to be any consensus on Big-Internet on how urgently "a solution" is required. Although the need for a solution to the class-B shortage is widely recognized, there is a wide diversity of opinion about how much time interim solutions like CIDR would buy, and thus exactly how urgent the, a, next stage is. The IAB proposals produced a deluge of opinion and dissent on Big-Internet and Ietf over the last weekend. Discounting the bigotry :-), some hard issues emerged. For example, of the two urgent matters, address exhaustion and routing table explosion, there is nothing in the IAB proposal about routing table explosion (i.e. routing aggregation, etc), and Jon Crowcroft has pointed out that if certain accepted NSAP allocation schemes are assumed, then only 5 bytes of CLNS addressing are left. Some believe that adopting CLNP to get 5 addressing bytes rather than 4, and no solution to routing table explosion doesn't look like a good way forwards. This has lead onto a discussion of exactly what the IAB proposal actually means. One extreme is "CLNP standard exactly, together with accepted NSAP allocation", another extreme is "well take IP as a starting point and CLNP is a step forward. Where do we go from there", and, needless to say, all points in between. There have been various messages trying to clear up this confusion, and discussing the implication of various points in this spectrum of interpretation. The above is not deliberately my opinion, but an attempt to summarise my understanding of a very active list. The discussion archives of a little while ago contained 884474 bytes, and that is just for this month. Most of it must be the message storm over the IAB proposal. I must have missinterpreted something if not many things. Please refer back to Big-Internet for the actual discussion. I believe that it is extremely important and urgent that a short-term fix be put into place - presumably CIDR. I believe that it is also extremely important and urgent to decide on the next steps. It is urgent enough that we will probably have to choose a pragmatic "interim" next step that might fall short of a "theoretical best" (though some believe that the next change to the Internet will have to be the last). However, I believe that it is *not* yet clear that "adopting CLNP" - whatever that actually means, is the best choice. It might actually be completely irrelevant. I would hope that the undoubted discussion at next week's IETF will generate more light than heat. (After all, our Internet community prides itself in that doesn't it? That's why we are more successful than others, isn't it?). Only coming OUT of the IETF can we hope to make a decision on this. While it would be nice to be able to take a recommendation in, I don't believe we should. "If you can keep your head when all about are losing their's..." Kipling. Sorry for the long message. Denis. PS Wish I was going to the IETF - sounds like it will be very interesting. :-( Denis Russell email: Denis.Russell(a)Ncl.AC.UK Computing Service Tel: (+44) 91 222 8243 The University Fax: (+44) 91 222 8232 Claremont Road Telex: 53 65 4 UNINEW G Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU ENGLAND

1 0

Re: European IP requests - template
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 01 Sep '92

01 Sep '92

I think this document is very useful, but would like to make one point: > As the European NIC, we require > different information to that required by the US and for it to be > presented in a format which is both easy for you to complete and for us > to process. Therefore before your application can be processed any > further, you will need to complete the template below and return it to > the appropriate organisation responsible for issuing IP network numbers. > In most cases this will be your IP service provider or the RIPE NCC. An > IP service provider is an organisation which provides Wide Area Network > (WAN) services external to your organisation. > service provider. There is potential for confusion here, as some IP service providers will have their own application forms that differ from this RIPE default template. (We do -- for much the same reasons that you have a different format to the US form -- local conditions prevail.) Your document as it stands risks getting a customer to fill in the RIPE form, sending it to his/her provider and being told to fill in another form. I suggest it would be better to amend the advice given here to say something like: 1. contact your provider -- then follow the procedure it advises for address assignment; 2. if there is no identifiable provider, or your provider doesn't assign addresses, contact the NCC using the guidance and template described below... Otherwise, people are going to get wound up in unnecessary form-filling and red-tape, which is the LAST thing we want! Regards, Bob Day JNT

2 1

ppp
by fantuzzi＠cadlab.sublink.org 01 Sep '92

01 Sep '92

I'm looking for implementations of ppp, the most interesting for me being the mips/ultrix one. Can you help me with indications of possible sources ? Thank you in advance. -- Email: fantuzzi(a)cadlab.sublink.org Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360 CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294

2 1

Re: Ownership of RIPE Database
by Peter Lothberg 28 Aug '92

28 Aug '92

> > b) As we (RIPE!?) are apparently forced to act, my proposal is along the > > lines of Fidonet, X.400-MHS and/or the Free Software Foundation/GNU > > etc.: Have the RIPE-NCC with the endorsement of RIPE and/or RARE (?) > > hold the Copyright. Then formally charge the holder of the copyright to > > provide the information freely, within the limits of the usual > > restrictions (not for profit, must not be restricted or altered if > > passed on, every copy must carry these tags, etc.) > > This seems to be a good idea but there must be a safeguard that the > copyright holder complies with the rules and the community must be > satisfied that this is likely to work. The NCC as such has no formal > legal standing of its own and neither does RIPE. Of course RARE feels > they are the right legal body. Does RIPE agree? The database will be come a critical component for all IP networkers in this part of the world. It's sort of the reed bottom to fire the atomic messiles control we are talking about... In the right hand's it might be good, in the wronq hands it's definetely baad. I would like to see an arrangement where it is keept public, and if we should play with the copyright toy, make the copyright be held by Santa Claus. -Peter

1 0

Re: Ownership of RIPE Database
by Wilfried Woeber, ACOnet, +43(1)58801-3614 27 Aug '92

27 Aug '92

>Of course when formalising this the issue of data protection legislation >regularly pops up as well. >[...] >Daniel > >PS: Also RIPE as a group might have a position on this. As an entry in <ripe(a)ripe.net> my personal feelings are as follows: /* #include community/general/disclaimer.h */ a) try to avoid discussing these issues as long as it seems to be feasable; however if the question has been raised in the public, you really have to make a move. Otherwise decisions are made be other bodies, not necessarily to your comfort. b) As we (RIPE!?) are apparently forced to act, my proposal is along the lines of Fidonet, X.400-MHS and/or the Free Software Foundation/GNU etc.: Have the RIPE-NCC with the endorsement of RIPE and/or RARE (?) hold the Copyright. Then formally charge the holder of the copyright to provide the information freely, within the limits of the usual restrictions (not for profit, must not be restricted or altered if passed on, every copy must carry these tags, etc.) c) when it comes to the protection of personal data, then we are in deep ... It still remains open what data is really personal/private and thus subject to protection! (Your healt record probably is private [though not part of an entry in the database], affiliation of a networkmanager, address of your office and telefone number probably is NOT personal ==> nonissue]) I think there is currently no European solution for this. Maybe we have to formally move the DB to a country where this is not (yet) a problem? Or we, once again, go along the RIPE Community Route as a kind of "association". Everybody joining (personally or as the representative of an organisation), explicitely agrees to have this data made publicly available, even if this means that I have to sign a paper at a RIPE Meeting. d) The "German Situation": While I do not know anything in detail, my general feeling is, that requests for privacy/keeping within a closed usergroup are _wrong_ as well as technically _misleading_. I could for example tell you stories about "keeping addresses secret" and at the same time they are listed in official directories (eg. PSPDN X.25 :-)... Every organisation that feels a need for such type of privacy eventually has to set up it's own network and cut _all_ links to other networks. And thus it becomes an _nonissue_. We should try to make this clear. I think there is no real way of _sharing infrastructure_, _collaboratively managing or trouble shooting_ and at the same time keeping _private or hidden_ addresses, etc. ...my 10 pennis worth, Wilfried.

2 1

Re: Ownership of RIPE Database
by Frode Greisen 24 Aug '92

24 Aug '92

On Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:56:20 +0200 you said: > >The RARE Executive is currently conducting research into "ownership" issues >of the RIPE Network Management Database. This research has been requested by >the RARE CoA. The NCC has been asked to help with the research. From my >personal experience this has two parts: > > - preventing abuse of the database I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about the database to see what kind of abuses might take place. Well, companies might compile a list of networkers for targetting advertisments but I don't think this would warrant special precautions. What do they do in the US with their comparable data ? > - ownership of a collection of data made by collaborative > effort which is not quite a "collaborative work" > If there is an owner this must be RIPE since I assume the data is submitted to RIPE on a non-exclusive basis by the NIC/NOCs. However, I strongly believe that except if potential abuses can be identified the database should be public. If somehow the database becomes protected there may arise a market for 'illegal' copies which quite likely would soon be outdated. As long at the original version is always accessible the risk or people floating incorrect information will be smaller. Btw. the BITEARN NODES table which also contains routing and personal information has always been public. >Of course when formalising this the issue of data protection legislation >regularly pops up as well. > Perhaps it would be worth while to check the Dutch legislation on any possibly needed procedures. Checking all European legislation on rules for directories and databases is a major project which as far as I understand has not been undertaken by our community. I think this is way beyond what RIPE should get into, but perhaps COSINE should have done it or it could become a RARE project. Regards/ Frode

2 1

Re: Ownership of RIPE Database
by Peter Lothberg 23 Aug '92

23 Aug '92

roll(a)stupi.se > > I would like to se the whole database viewed public, maybee a "copyleft" > > approach. As this is the only way to stay put of spending extra resources > > on non-productive work. piet(a)mcsun.eu.net > Fully agreed. Any copyright on the database would have > > a highly counterproductive effect since it might well > > stop people from contributing info for it. Sylvain.Langlois(a)der.edf.fr > If the move to X.500 is done in the future, you must be aware that all > the information will be public. You can play with access control lists > (if anyone request them), but this may not be the best way to protect > networked information. The purpose of the Ripe database is to coordinate *ALL* network activities (that want to coordinate) in Europe. To be trusted as 'neutral grounds' and to make sure our resources are not spent on 'counterproductive' work, it has to be public to anyone. If X500, Gopher, Telnet, Punched cards, Papertape, Yellow wire or Blue wire are used to access the information, is irrelevant. -Peter (What's the meaning of a Secret network if you talk to the outside world. -:).)

1 0

European IP requests - template
by hostmaster＠ripe.net 21 Aug '92

21 Aug '92

Dear All, Some of you may be aware that the RIPE NCC is now handling all requests from European Organisations for IP numbers. We need to make this as widely known as possible, so please point any queries you may recieve regarding IP number requests to the RIPE document store where you will find the letter below together with notes for guidance and a blank template to be completed and returned to either the RIPE NCC or an IP service provider. The document is called: ripe-draft-ipnum-tmpl-v0.txt and can be found in directory: ripe/docs/ripe-drafts/ and is on host ftp.ripe.net. Please note that NIC's and IP service providers who already recieve blocks from the NCC should continue to send their database entries in as normal, when IP numbers are allocated by them. Regards, RIPE NCC staff ------------------------------------------------------- To whom it may concern, The RIPE Network Coordination Centre now handles all requests for IP network numbers from European organisations. Our aim is to provide a rapid and efficient service to all European organisations. As this is a recent initiative, procedures for handling network number requests are in the process of being established. Therefore we apologise in advance for any duplication of effort that may be required by you due to new forms and templates. As the European NIC, we require different information to that required by the US and for it to be presented in a format which is both easy for you to complete and for us to process. Therefore before your application can be processed any further, you will need to complete the template below and return it to the appropriate organisation responsible for issuing IP network numbers. In most cases this will be your IP service provider or the RIPE NCC. An IP service provider is an organisation which provides Wide Area Network (WAN) services external to your organisation. Before completion of the template, please be sure to read the following text and examples carefully which will guide you. A new classless IP addressing scheme called CIDR has recently been adopted to cope with routing table growth and address space exhaustion problems in the Internet (see references at the end of this letter for details of recommended reading). Under this scheme it is beneficial for everyone to get their network numbers allocated via their respective IP service providers. If you are planning to connect your network to other networks oustide your organisation in the forseeable future we strongly urge you to get numbers allocated from your current or prospective IP service provider. Alternatively, if this is not likely, then you will be allocated a number from a different part of the address space by the RIPE NCC. Please pay careful attention to this matter. Class A and B network numbers are a scarce resource and some justification in terms of expected network size and structure will be needed before such a number can be allocated. Class A numbers will only be assigned to networks which technically need more than 65000 hosts to be on one network number. A detailed technical justification is needed, review takes place on a global scale and the allocation process can take several months. Similarily due to class B scarcity, a reasonable number of class C numbers will be assigned over class B. If you can engineer your network to use multiple class C numbers, it is strongly advised. Please note that this is contrary to earlier recommendations where it was recommended to use Bs over multiple Cs due to routing table size constraints. Appended to this letter is a blank template for IP number reqistration, which we would be extremely grateful if you complete and return to the appropriate organisation responsible for issuing IP network numbers. In most cases this will be your IP service provider. It may of course also be the RIPE NCC. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the NCC. Please note that all queries should, if possible, be made through e-mail and sent to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>. If you do not have access to electronic mail, then we prefer to communicate by fax rather than by ordinary mail. RIPE NCC fax: +31 20 592 5090 RIPE NCC phone: +31 20 592 5065 Address: Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands If we do not hear from you in the near future we will assume that you have contacted your IP service provider. Yours sincerely, The RIPE NCC staff - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLANK TEMPLATE FOR IP NUMBER REGISTRATION - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The format of the template below is such that the indented text is by way of example. A clean blank template is appended at the end of this letter for you to complete and return to us. Please be careful to follow the format information contained within the examples. If you are unsure about any of the fields please leave them blank. Please note: Please ensure that you complete as many person templates as there are different persons specified in the network template. Please send the completed template to either your network service provider or the RIPE NCC, whichever is appropriate. Many thanks. RIPE NCC - ----------------- Network template: - ----------------- inetnum: Please state class of request. Capital letter to indicate class followed by a by the word request. See example below. Example: inetnum: C-request number: Please indicate how many network numbers you are asking for. Example: number: 3 Class C netname: Appropriate network name if there is one. Format: capitals, numerals and "-" only, starting with capital Example: netname: TBIT-BUGS descr: Postal address is not needed, this can be found via the contacts, but a description of the organisation. The country is given in the country field below. Format: free text, one line per entry, multiple lines in sequence. Example: descr: Network Bugs Feeding Facility descr: Terabit Labs Inc. descr: Northtown country: Format: ISO3166 two letter code. We know this gives problems for networks crossing national boundaries. Choose most appropriate country in this case, probably the location of the admin-c. Example: country: IE admin-c: If the person name is ambiguous, use the nic handle. Format: <firstname> <initials> <lastname> Example: admin-c: John E. Doe tech-c: Name of technical contact person. connect: If you have an IP Service Provider, please put their name here, otherwise complete with LOCAL. If you are unsure, please leave blank. Example: LOCAL changed: Who and when changed this last. Format: <email-address> YYMMDD Example: changed: johndoe(a)terabit-labs.nn 900401 source: RIPE Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. Format: RIPE - ----------------------------------------------------------- Person template: - ---------------- person: Full name. This must be the same as the corresponding contact attributes. Format: first names first, no commas etc. Example: person: John E. Doe address: Postal address Include everything necessary for paper mail to be delivered. Format: multiple lines of text City and post code on a single line. Country on the last line. Example: address: Terabit Labs Inc. address: Industrial Estate North address: North Perpendicular Road 12 address: NN-1234 Northtown address: Northern Nowhere phone: Telephone Multiple numbers in the desired order please (secretariats etc.). Format: International +<country-code> <city> <subscriber> If no direct inward dialing is available, please append "ext." and extension number. Example: phone: +31 20 12334676 phone: +44 123 987654 ext. 4711 fax-no: Telefax see phone e-mail: Electronic mail address. Format: Valid domain address please (if possible no !, %, ::) Example: e-mail: johndoe(a)terabit-labs.nn nic-hdl: NIC handle. An identifier used by SRI-NIC to unambiguously refer to Internet people. Format: NIC format Example: nic-hdl: JD0401 Optional but strongly suggested for those who have a NIC handle. changed: Who and when changed this last. Format: <email-address> YYMMDD Example: changed: johndoe(a)terabit-labs.nn 900401 source: RIPE Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. Format: RIPE - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADDTIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 1. Do you plan to connect to the Internet: Y/N? (or, do you plan to have connectivity *external* to your organisation?) 2. Estimation of number of hosts and subnets: (by 'host' we mean every piece of equipment that needs an IP network number) Initially: Within one year: Within two years: Within five years: 3. Network size and structure: Please submit a description of your network plans. It is essential to include details here if you are applying for a Class B address. If this application is made on behalf of an organisation, please indicate to whom the template should be returned: name: Organisation: e-mail: phone: fax: - ----------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Reading: 1. rfc 1338.txt - CIDR Addressing Scheme 2. draft-rekhter-ipaddress-guide-02.txt - Global Address Requirement 3. rfc1347.ps (postscript format) - Further Reading 4. rfc1347.txt (ascii format) - " " The documents you require are all contained within the RIPE document store. Reference 1, 3 and 4 can be found in the rfc/ directory. Reference 2 can be found in the internet-drafts/ directory. The RIPE document store can be accessed in a number of ways: 1. telnet info.ripe.net 2. using IXI type: pad 020430459300031 3. via the Public Data Network type: pad 0204129004331 4. anonymous FTP from host ftp.ripe.net - ------------------------------------------------------------ BLANK IP TEMPLATE - ----------------------------------------------------------- To: hostmaster(a)ripe.net From: Network template: inetnum: number: netname: descr: country: admin-c: tech-c: connect: changed: Person template: person: address: address: address: address: phone: fax-no: e-mail: nic-hd: changed: source: Person template: (necessary if more than one person is mentioned) person: address: address: address: address: phone: fax-no: e-mail: nic-hd: changed: source: - --------------------------------------------------------- end.

1 0

Re: Ownership of RIPE Database
by Peter Lothberg 20 Aug '92

20 Aug '92

I would like to se the whole database viewed public, maybee a "copyleft" approach. As this is the only way to stay put of spending extra resources on non-productive work. -Peter

4 4

Ownership of RIPE Database
by Daniel Karrenberg 20 Aug '92

20 Aug '92

The RARE Executive is currently conducting research into "ownership" issues of the RIPE Network Management Database. This research has been requested by the RARE CoA. The NCC has been asked to help with the research. From my personal experience this has two parts: - preventing abuse of the database - ownership of a collection of data made by collaborative effort which is not quite a "collaborative work" Of course when formalising this the issue of data protection legislation regularly pops up as well. I know that some people on this list have experience of dealing with these issues. I would appreciate their input. Daniel PS: Also RIPE as a group might have a position on this.

2 1