- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE meeting - agenda (draft)
by k13＠nikhef.nl 02 Sep '92

02 Sep '92

Draft Agenda 13th RIPE meeting ============================== The following points have been brought up as items for discussion in the plenary sessions of the forthcoming RIPE meeting. Of course, the standard items will also be there: minutes, action points, working group reports, etc. People who have further suggestions, please let us know a.s.a.p. A copy of the meeting announcement is also attended to this message. 1. RIPE position paper 2. RIPE and RARE - the technical program - report from the RARE CoA 3. EBONE progress report 4. EMPB IP services 5. RIPE NCC - report - the future of 6. Global Address Assignement 7. IP Registration form - can we have a common format among all NICs ============================================================================== R I P E meeting announcement ============================= This is to announce that the 13th RIPE meeting will take place: dates: 30 September 14:00h - 18:00h 1 October 09:00h - 18:00h 2 October 09:00h - 16:00h place: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications (Telecom Paris) 46, rue Barrault Paris 13 metro: - Place d'Italie, or - Corvisart NOTE: - In order to facilitate the logistics of the meeting, could you please give notice of your coming a.s.a. possible to anne(a)ripe.net and NOT TO THE LIST. - old hands: please bring your RIPE badge - newcomers: please provide the following info for your badge: + full name + affiliation + country to the above address. Agenda: a detailed agenda will be mailed the first week of September. Don't hesitate to suggest topics of interest. Appended to this announcement: - how to reach the meeting place - hotels in Paris ############################################################################## How to reach the Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications ================================================================== - Take the RER-B to Chatelet from the airport. - Transfer to Line 7, direction Mairie d'Ivry/Villejuif. Don't get lost, it's a bit of a labyrinth. - Get off at the metro station Place d'Italie. - Exit onto "rue Bobillot". - Walk south-west down rue Bobillot until you come to the second set of traffic lights and a church on the right-hand corner. - Turn left and walk west on rue Tolbiac. - After 4 short blocks, you will find yourself standing in front of a large, fairly modern apartment build with a highly visible "La Poste" sign in front. - Turn right up the street (rue Barrault), go 20m, and you will be standing in front of the main entrance of the school. - Directions will be posted inside. ############################################################################### Hotels in Paris, conveniently reachable from the meeting place: Name/Price Address Phone Fax =========================================================================== Hotel Urbis 177, rue de Tolbiac 45.80.16.60 45.80.95.80 FF 350 75013 Paris TIM Hotel 22, rue Barrault 45.80.67.67 45.89.39.63 FF 360 75013 Paris Pullman St-Jacques 17, bd St-Jacques 40.78.78.40 45.88.43.93 FF 1015 75014 Paris Hotel Etchegarry 43, rue Broulebaide 43.36.22.41 FF unknown 75013 Paris All phone and fax numbers should be read as: +33 1 <quoted number>

1 0

Re: European IP requests - template
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 02 Sep '92

02 Sep '92

Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg(a)net.ripe> writes: > After giving it some thought I strongly believe that we should go for a > European IP network number *registration* form and eventually for a > worldwide one. I agree. If others on this list think it's worthwhile, I'll circulate the form we use, plus the reasoning for its design, as input. If RIPE does come up with a useable "standard" form, we'll switch to using it. (This is a bit of a pain at this stage, as it'll mean a change to our documentation, but I'd consider the longer term benefits worth the short term extra work.) Regards, Bob Day JIPS

2 1

RIPE DNS Hostcount August 1992
by Marten Terpstra 02 Sep '92

02 Sep '92

All, Hostcount once more. Again a nice increase of almost 10,000, to 221951. The only one country going down a bit is Hungary, due to unreachable nameservers. We welcome Great-Brittain (.gb) in the European networking scene ;-) Unfortunately due to a mistake, the files with all zone output are unavailable this time. They will return next month. Some people have suggested that parts of this hostcount could be done distributed, to get more accurate figures, and keep network load as low as possible. I am happy to discuss a scheme for this at the next RIPE meeting. Some people have requested to have the history of the hostcounts distributed with the hostcount every month, to keep track of what has passed over the months/years. You can find the previous hostcounts below the hostcount for August. Unfortunately, some of the counts are missing, mainly in the period when I did this still at NIKHEF. Also some of the earliest counts may not be as reliable as the last year or so. Much has changed to the program. Enjoy, -Marten RIPE DNS Hostcount Previous Count : Mon Aug 3 1992 This Count : Mon Aug 31 1992 CY SOA COUNTED DUPL REAL CHANGE ============================================================ al 1 0 0 0 0 at 161 6831 26 6805 + 277 be 17 1512 55 1457 + 20 bg 1 0 0 0 0 by 0 0 0 0 0 ch 58 17888 106 17782 + 762 cs 10 686 62 624 + 624 de 855 48533 917 47616 + 1788 dk 72 3117 43 3074 + 295 dz 0 0 0 0 0 ee 1 37 0 37 + 37 es 149 3891 57 3834 + 115 fi 131 17018 150 16868 + 1005 fr 293 19343 180 19163 + 390 gb 1 1 0 1 + 1 gr 41 612 135 477 + 113 hr 0 0 0 0 0 hu 3 33 0 33 - 66 ie 22 667 4 663 + 37 is 8 447 1 446 + 46 it 176 5166 192 4974 + 122 il 40 2897 51 2846 + 65 lt 1 0 0 0 0 lu 5 79 1 78 0 lv 1 0 0 0 0 nl 260 21567 369 21198 + 937 no 299 15041 172 14869 + 625 pl 49 676 11 665 + 271 pt 47 1407 22 1385 + 60 ro 0 0 0 0 0 se 318 21912 175 21737 + 878 si 1 0 0 0 0 su 125 26 0 26 + 10 tn 2 9 0 9 + 1 ua 0 0 0 0 0 uk 306 39764 4493 35271 + 1316 va 0 0 0 0 0 yu 2 13 0 13 0 ============================================================ 3456 229173 7222 221951 + 9729 History Oct 1990 31724 Nov 1990 33665 Dec 1990 29230 Jan 1991 43832 Feb 1991 - Mar 1991 44506 Apr 1991 46948 May 1991 - Jun 1991 63267 Jul 1991 - Aug 1991 73069 Sep 1991 92834 Oct 1991 104824 Nov 1991 129652 Dec 1991 - Jan 1992 - Feb 1992 161434 Mar 1992 167939 Apr 1992 170050 May 1992 182528 Jun 1992 196758 Jul 1992 213017 Aug 1992 221951

1 0

Re: IAB's proposals in response to the work of the ROAD group
by Denis.Russell＠newcastle.ac.uk 02 Sep '92

02 Sep '92

Re: X-Mail-Interface: Macintosh Eudora (Ac.Comp.Centr.Utrecht) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:33:46 +0100 To: raresec(a)rare.nl From: raresec(a)rare.nl Subject: Re: IAB's proposals in response to the work of the ROAD group Cc: ripe(a)ripe.net, iptag(a)jnt.ac.uk ... >>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. >...etc... I sent that message to ripe and iptag ages ago now. The date on my copy of the outgoing message is: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 14:14:36 +0100 It is a bit weird seeing it reappear after such a delay. It also makes my comments therein seem a little strange. A lot has happened since then. Where has the message been? Denis.

1 0

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