Rob Blokzijl welcomed the participants to the 15th RIPE meeting hosted by NIKHEF and held in Amsterdam.
The agenda was approved.
Presentation notes
The minutes from the 14th RIPE meeting were approved. The action items from the 14th RIPE meeting minutes were reviewed. The following list comprises the ongoing action items only. All other action items were closed.
Action: 13.3 Marten Terpstra
Changes in database format. Coordination discussions with US counterparts are ongoing.
Action: 13.4 Marten Terpstra
To progress GSI/Merit/RIPE NCC exchange format discussions.
Action: 13.6 NCC
To include the operational contact attribute in all object definitions besides persons.
Action: 14.4 NCC
Generation of Internet handles by local registries. The InterNIC is working on it.
Action: 14.17 Milan Sterba
Track the US development of the resource-object description work and will report to the list (see also action 15.9).
A paper has been circulated (ref. ripe-84) which proposes a future funding model for the RIPE NCC. The document will form the basis for future RIPE NCC funding discussions. The current model proposes a "how much" model which defines a tariff relating to the size of an organisation. "Who should pay" has been based on charging Internet service providers since they are the direct beneficiaries of the services of the RIPE NCC.
To progress this activity, a draft letter is currently being approved and will be circulated once finalised (authors: Rob Blokzijl and Paul Van Binst) together with the funding paper (ripe-84) and other RIPE NCC publications to solicit funds from potential contributors for 1993 and for committment following the proposed guidelines.
To secure funding for 1994, invoices to all current RARE members will be sent out shortly. Contributions from RARE members will secure the majority of funds required for RIPE NCC for 1994.
At the forthcoming CoA in Trondheim, RARE will formally offer to continue the existing arrangements for RIPE i.e. RARE is to provide the formal framework for RIPE as already established. The RIPE community confirmed their acceptance of this offer and Tomaz Kalin
confirmed that this acceptance would be conveyed to the RARE CoA.
It was suggested and agreed that the chairman of RIPE should be given mandate to try to arrange for a long term solution to this problem. To summarise: long-term stability for the RIPE NCC must be based on a proper and secure financial scheme. One such scheme has been outlined in the recent funding paper (doc ref. ripe-84) and the participants of
the meeting were urged to further discuss this in the coming months as a matter of priority.
The chairmen of the respective working groups briefly introduced their agendas and the work items to be covered.
Rob Blokzijl briefly described the history of RIPE NCC and origin of the activity plan. The RIPE NCC is now one year old and a review of the activity plan is necessary to establish whether the needs of the RIPE community are adequately covered.
Three deliverables were identified as necessary:
A number of members of the audience echoed the sentiment that the neutral role of the RIPE NCC must be clearly defined and maintained. It was also suggested that the accountability of the RIPE NCC could be considered.
The RIPE NCC Report was based on the Annual Report: "The RIPE NCC One Year of Experience with European Internet Coordination" (Karrenberg, Lord and Terpstra) which was distributed as a tabled paper. The report will shortly become a ripe document retrievable from ftp.ripe.net. An announcement to the RIPE mailing list will be made when it is available.
A presentation was given on the "The NASA Science Internet (NSI)" and the plans for "Extensions into Russia". The presentation covered topics such as the NSI Charter, Acceptable Use Guidelines, the NSI Approach, NSI Science Requirements for Russia, IKI as NSI "Gateway" to Russia and the schedule for Russian connectivity. Maps were also displayed showing the Russian Space Science Internet (RSSI), IKI: NSI Gateway and Bitnet
Hub and maps of the NASA Science Internet.
Hard copies of the presentation were distributed at the meeting and are available from the RIPE NCC on request.
Peter Lothberg presented his ideas concerning a possible method of scaling the Internet in the future with multiple providers. Hard copies of the presentation were circulated at the meeting. The slides are available on request from him.
Some ideas for possible improvements in the use of the existing Internet infrastructure were presented including the following topics for consideration
Possible topics (A):
Possible topics (B):
Methods:
Mechanisms:
Summary:
Commenting from the chair, R Blokzijl stated that the RIPE charter specifies that the community is restricted to coordination of tcp/ip networking, and pointed to the working groups within IETF/RARE who are tackling these issues. However, it was acknowledged that the growth of the Internet is such that locating information is often not a straightforward process (as the information on the Internet continues to grow rapidly) and much work is still to be done. The RIPE community however, should watch to see where relevant co-ordination at the service provider level may be necessary and act when it is needed.
Erik Huizer gave an overview of the structure and work of the IETF and urged members of the audience to attend and participate in the forthcoming IETF conference to be held on July 12th-16th in Amsterdam. This IETF is the first to be held in Europe.
The idea
Procedures
Changing Provider
How to request
Send in domain object for x.193.in-addr.arpa to <[email protected]> as shown in the example below:
domain: 202.193.in-addr.arpa
descr: Pan European Organisations block
admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg
tech-c: Marten Terpstra
zone-c: Marten Terpstra
nserver: ns.eu.net
nserver: sunic.sunet.se
nserver: ns.ripe.net
changed: [email protected] 930319
source: RIPE
The NCC will check, delegate, run secondary and forward entry to RIPE DB.
Current Status
Slides of the presentation can be retrieved from ftp ftp.ripe.net in directory: ripe/presentations/ripe-m15-marten-IN-ADDR.ps.Z
Three main components for the project
Main Goals
Routing Registry
Routing Registry
Database and objects must be easily derived for use by the route server. Tools for information and debugging are currently being developed for routing policy
Plan
12 point plan produced (work in progress) - summarised below: (refer to paper for timescales)
Routing Registry
Route Server
Status - Routing Registry
Status - Route Server
Status
General
Slides of the presentation are available from ftp ftp.ripe.net in directory ripe/presentations/ripe-m15-tony-RS-SUMM.ps.Z
What is Giss?
Status (1)
Status (2)
Focus
Status
Slides of the presentation can be fetched from ftp ftp.ripe.net in directory: /ripe/presentations/ripe-m15-tony-GISS-SUMM.ps.Z
The document "Representation of IP Routing Policy in the RIPE database" by Bates, Jouanigot, Karrenberg, Lothberg and Terpstra (Doc ID:ripe-81) was accepted as a ripe document. Work on an earlier version of these ideas (Doc ID: ripe-60) is no longer recommended. Those using the earlier style of registering routing policies should contact NCC and migrate to new method of registering their routing policies. Extensions of ripe-60 will not be accepted as from April 29th and migration should take place as soonas possible.
Action: 15.1 NCC
Implement update procedure with respect to ripe-81
Two meetings of RTC subsequent to last RIPE meeting where the following topics were discussed:
EMPB - Data Circuits:
IP pilot: as of march 1st, 1993 4 regional networks connected
IP host in EuropaNET for DNS, ftp and connectivity tests.
Status CLNP
Access:
Routing:
CNLP Pilot (started march 1) - 4 regional networks are connected
All using static routing/routing updated distributed via clnp pilot list.
IP and clnp pilots:
Review of ripe-draft-in-addr-procedures-v1.4.txt
The document was approved by the working group and will be archived as a ripe document.
Action: 15.2 Marten Terpstra
ripe-draft-in-addr-procedures-v1.4.txt to be archived as ripe document
Review of ripe-draft-hints-v1.txt
The content of the document was discussed in detail.
Ruediger Volk suggested that when address space is assigned it be made clear that the same organisation should include a report on how this address space is being used in any requests for additional address space.
Action: 15.3 Ruediger Volk.
To suggest text on the necessity for organisations to supply details of their planned address space usage when requesting additional address space.
It was agreed that the comments from the working group would be folded in, the document would be circulated via the working group list, after which the document would be published as a ripe document. The NCC offered to mirror the document in local language.
It was also suggested that the document should be put forward as an rfc.
Action: 15.4 Bob Day
To fold in the comments of the working group on the ripe-draft-hints-v1.txt, circulate the document to the wg list and publish as a ripe document.
Review of draft Delegated Internet Registry Leaflet
Minor changes to the draft document were suggested and agreed.
Action: 15.5 Anne Lord
To fold in comments to the ripe-draft-hints-v1.txt and publish the leaflet "Delegated Registry"
Review of Funding paper (ripe-84)
It was recommended and accepted that ripe-84 should reflect the RIPE position on the funding of the RIPE NCC. Major points to emerge from the discussions were as follows.
It was suggested that there should be a refinement on using the terms medium, small and large to describe organisations. Regional, national or local were suggested categories used to describe the relative size of service providers. Anyone with ideas for refining the funding categories are invited to contact NCC with their suggestions.
The problems listed in sec. 5.1 of the report concerning potential non-contributors were not considered to constitute a serious problem. It was agreed that charging individual tcp/ip users (category 4.4) should not be implemented at the present time.
It was anticipated that the eventual charges to service providers might turn out to be higher than those quoted given that more personnel may be needed at the NCC in the future.
There was some discussion over terminology: whether the term "sponsoring the RIPE NCC" should be used in favour of service providers being "billed".
It was felt by some that there must be incentives for service providers to run local registries but it was agreed that this should be discussed at a future date.
Action: 15.6 RIPE chairs, chairs of working groups and RIPE NCC manager
Meet to progress RIPE NCC funding work item
Review of RIPE NCC Internet Numbers Registration document (ripe-72)
It was agreed to recommend rather than require a 2nd opinion should be sought for requests for assignments of more than 32 C's. Some minor comments were made about ripe-72 for inclusion in the forthcoming update of the document.
Action: 15.7 Marten Terpstra
Fold in comments and republish amended ripe-72
Brainstorming
It was agreed that Mbone coordination is not a high priority work item for NCC, since it works well with current mailing list, although it was acknowledged that the situation may change.
Internet Registry workshop: plan to look at case-studies of IR experiences. Suggested to schedule for 16th RIPE meeting
Action: 15.8 NCC
To collect interesting cases of IP network number allocations (all local IR's, NCC) in preparation for the local-ir closed seminar
Action: 15.9 NCC
Assist SURFnet for the testing and support of MBONE for Amsterdam IETF.
AOB
It was suggested that the date of assignment of a particular piece of address space be recorded in the RIPE database. After some discussion it was agreed to propose new tags to the database working group. The tags are "created" - for all DB objects - when was this object created and "assigned" - for internet numbers and (maybe domains) when was the
number (domain) assigned.
Action: 15.10 Daniel Karrenberg
To propose new tags "created" and "assigned" to the database working group for consideration.
Status of the Database Software
The RIPE NCC is currently investigating the case for a complete rewrite of the database software. It is felt that the database has grown too large and the volume of updates is increasingly lengthening the update process.
DB Documentation
With the introduction and amendment of various objects and procedures there is an urgent need to refurbish the documentation. It was suggested also to make an attempt to remove outdated things from the DB and the documentation. Possible structure:
A discussion will be initiated on the DB list to propose an appropriate structure of the documentation
Action: 15.11 Wilfried Woeber
Initiate discussion on the db-wg list proposing appropriate structure of the documentation for the database
Resource Object
There was once again a request for the introduction of a sort of "Resource Object". This is a longstanding discussion and the DB group should now come to a decision soon, either to implement or abandon. There will be another attempt to synchronize with similar US activities
Action: 15.12 Milan Sterba
To research and refine proposal for the "Resource Object" tag (see also action 14.17)
Organisational matters
There was some discussion about the expectations and scheduling of the DB WG session in relation to other working group sessions. For the next meeting an attempt will be made to discuss and improve the scheduling of time-slots. Input and suggestions welcome!
The CEEC version 6 was discussed: orientation, structure and form of the report. Not only CEEC but all European countries will be included in future versions. Submissions will be formally reviewed before being incorporated into report and guidelines will be produced.
Action: 15.13 NCC
CEEC Report version 6 will be formatted into index data store with a hypertext tool installed which can be used to search the report.
Action: 15.14 Milan Sterba, Rob Blokzijl, Tony Bates
To coordinate and review the submissions for version 7 of the Connectivity Report.
How to get Version 6 of the CEEC report distributed before Trondheim was discussed
Action: 15.15 Milan Sterba, NCC, RARE SEC
Milan To produce version 6 of the report. NCC to print it, RARE SEC to copy and distributed by RARE SEC/NCC
The relationship of the connectivity working group to Internet monthly report was discussed. How to pursue this was considered but no action items were agreed.
The relationship of GISS to the mandate of the connectivity working group was discussed. Input from the GISS working group was felt valuable and relevant in terms of being able to provide terms and taxonomy of what connectivity services are and what connectivity is. The "metrics" of network services were discussed. It was agreed that connectivity and reachability cooperation measurements should be piloted over Europe but no actions were decided upon.
An exhaustive list (which will be part of the next connectivity report by Milan Sterba) of planned, existing and ordered links to Moscow region was drawn up. It was noted that the internal situation regarding connectivity in Russia was a complex one. Future planning needs to focus the discussions on IP addressing and routing.
Overview:
Internal coordination inside Russia is quite clearly needed. Given the above capacity and number of separate lines M Popov discussed these problems further.
Dmitry Avdeyev gave a short presentation about a joint project between DFN, DESY from German side and three HEP institutes in Moscow. A satellite line between DESY (Hamburg) and Moscow State University will be created to make access for scientific community in Russia to WIN and HEPnet. At the first stage three HEP institutes (NPI MSU, ITEP, Lebedev) in the Moscow region will be connected.
Administrivia:
Scope:
Connectivity overlap - Milan Sterba
There was some discussion about the need to develop a framework about connectivity in each of European countries i.e what services there are and how they should be described. Also there were discussions concerning the need to monitor connectivity quality. It was felt that a project should be initiatiated which looks at qualilty of connectivity - specifically the project would need to define tools, methods of measurement and services. No action items were agreed.
GISS document - outcome
Structure of document
Aspects of strawman 2 paper
3 layer document which will be focused on provider/provider relationship.
Action: 15.16
Tony Bates Publish straw 2 paper for comments and request volunteers to undertake some of the work.
A strawman 3 paper is not currently planned.
Glenn Kowack volunteered to write in collaboration with Tony Bates a top level introduction for the user as an add on to the GISS paper once it has been written.
Action: 15.17 Glenn Kowack and Tony Bates
Write a top level introduction for the user as an add-on to the GISS paper once it has been written.
Changes in the root name server list as follows:
DNS traffic: more statistics are needed for analysis
Supposed final beta version of BIND 4.9 is out
Next generation of IP: ftp.sesqui.net
Several new top level domains
AOB
Tony Bates stood in for Jean-Michel Jouanigot who was unable to attend due to illness.
Closure on ripe-81
Gilles had a problem with blocks in the database - regarding who is actually responsible for splitting the block when only some of the networks are to be routed.
He proposes that the NCC will split the block accordingly to the requested routing policy. He thinks that it takes too much time/resource to ask a national registry to split the block.
Action: 15.18 NCC
To come up with a suitable solution to the problem of splitting blocks in the RIPE database when only some of the networks are to be routed
Antonio Blasco Bonito asked the question "what is the proper usage of the blocks?" It is currently not quite clear what the blocks are for. It may need some education for network managers. i.e. A block should be treated as a block.
Gilles Farrache commented that it would be impossible to tell all the network managers in Europe. Will be moved to CIDR point on the agenda.
The Chair moved to accept "ripe-81" as the official RIPE recommended method for registering routing policies within the RIPE database with the understanding that the update procedure would be modified to deal with blocks. THIS WAS AGREED and would be announced at the Plenary session the next day.
Ripe-81 enhancements
Tony Bates gave a presentation of some ideas for extensions for ripe-81.
Inter-AS Local Information
Seen as a need but outside of RIPE-81 itself. Peter Lothberg was volunteered to draft something.
Action: 15.19 Peter Lothberg To draft something on Inter-AS local information.
DMZs (DeMilitarised Zone)
DMZs are always an interesting case as generally the network is announced by more than one AS the issues are:
Action: 15.20 Tony Bates and Daniel Karrenberg
To draft possible attributes for DMZ Networks.
IP "Next Generation"
The idea of incorporating other protocols based on "ripe-81" formats. The topic was moved to next meeting.
Colouring
Havard presented his problem with EUnet/NO. The answer is to split the AS, but this cannot be done because of one router if you could source the nets in different ASes inside one router you could create different ASes with different policies. Other solution, take two links with different ASes
Action: 15.21 Daniel Karrenberg.
To draft document on colouring.
CIDR
Tony Bates presented one slide which stated:
"CIDR, default or die !!!!!!!"
He expressed his grave concern that network operators need to be ready and must understand the implications. It was clear that a document is needed detailing the impact of CIDR depending of what type of routing technique and topology you use. However, it was felt that the NCC could not take this action on themselves at present due to too many other documents in the pipeline.
EBONE will start first with CIDR so they have the responsibilities to document the consequences.
Stephan Biesbroeck (BelNET), Duncan Rogerson (JANET) and Harvard Eidnes (UNINETT) volunteered to detail how they see CIDR deployment will directly affect them. It is hoped this can be a basis for some form of CIDR impact document within Europe.
Action: 15.22 Stephan Biesbroeck, Duncan Rogerson and Harvard Eidnes
To evaluate in detail how CIDR deployment will directly affect them.
IXF BoF
The last 30 minutes was devoted to a discussion session on the ideas of the Internet eXchange Facility (IXF) as presented by Peter Lothberg.
Some limited copies of a draft by Tony Bates and Peter Lothberg entitled "IXF - An Interconnect Model for Internet Service Providers and Network Operators". The general feeling was that this was a good idea and should be explored more. The authors would modify the document in terms of context so it was clear what the aim was. Is was hoped that there would be continued discussion on the IXF issues at future meetings.
An overview was given of the recent developments in EBONE.
A very short overview of the current situation of EBONE connectivity for central Europe was given. For the time being Austria is "kind of hiding" these regions behind ACOnet. Therefore a project was started to propose a remodelling of this region to have an EBS in Austria and to connect the networks in this region as individual RBSs.
A proposal was submitted to the EBONE Management Committee to consider the restructuring of the dual-homed ACOnet RBS to become a true EBS. RBS connections are expected from Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary,Croatia and Romania (in geographical order).
The project milestones are:
An overview of the EBONE 93/94 routing plan was given by Peter Lothberg.
The EBONE statistics report concerned the following topics: a review since the last RIPE meeting, IP accounting and traffic measurements.
IP Accounting
The results of the statistics for RIPE/non-RIPE aggregation taken on April 21 and April 22 were presented. Statistics for country aggregation are also collected and were presented for the same days.
Traffic measurements
Currently work is done at the OPSTAT format at Cern but there is a project by FARnet and Merit to develop traffic measurement tools.
It is possible to determine for example: How much traffic is flowing on EBONE; how much traffic is each regional delivering to EBONE and how much traffic is each regional getting from EBONE. Some data was also presented for the Amsterdam-EBS taken on April 27.
Please contact Willem van de Scheun or the RIPE NCC if you are interested in a copy of this presentation.
The 16th RIPE meeting was agreed to take place in Amsterdam on September 15th-17th, 1993. The RIPE chairs and the NCC agreed to investigate possible future venues for forthcoming RIPE meetings and to report at the 16th RIPE meeting.
Action: 15.23 RIPE chairs and NCC
Investigate possible future venues for forthcoming RIPE meetings and to report at the 16th RIPE meeting.
There were no items raised under this AOB.
Rob Blokzijl thanked the participants for attending and declared the15th RIPE meeting closed.
List of Open Action Items
Action: 13.3 Marten Terpstra
Changes in database format. Coordination discussions with US counterparts are ongoing.
Action: 13.4 Marten Terpstra
Progress GSI/Merit/RIPE NCC exchange format discussions.
Action: 13.6 NCC
Include the operational contact attribute in all object definitions besides persons.
Action: 14.4 NCC
Generation of Internet handles by local registries.
Action: 14.17 Milan Sterba
Track the US development of the resource-object description work and will report to the list (see also action 15.9)
Action: 15.1 NCC
Implement update procedure with respect to ripe-81
Action: 15.2 Marten Terpstra
ripe-draft-in-addr-procedures-v1.4.txt to be archived as ripe document
Action: 15.3 Ruediger Volk
To suggest text on the necessity for organisations to supply details of their planned address space usage when requesting additional address space.
Action: 15.4 Bob Day
To fold in the comments of the working group on the ripe-draft-hints-v1.txt, circulate the document to the wg list and publish as a ripe document
Action: 15.5 Anne Lord
To fold in comments to the ripe-draft-hints-v1.txt and publish the leaflet "Delegated Registry"
Action: 15.6 RIPE chairs,chairs of working groups and RIPE NCC manager
Meet to progress RIPE NCC funding work item
Action: 15.7 Marten Terpstra
Fold in comments and republish amended ripe-72
Action: 15.8 NCC
Collect interesting cases of IP network number allocations (all local IR's, NCC) in preparation for tlhe local-ir closed seminar
Action: 15.9 NCC
To assist SURFnet for the testing and support of MBONE for Amsterdam IETF
Action: 15.10 Daniel Karrenberg
To propose new tags "created" and "assigned" to the databse working group for consideration.
Action: 15.11 Wilfried Woeber
Initiate discussion on the db-wg list proposing appropriate structure of the documentation for the database
Action: 15.12 Milan Sterba
to research and refine proposal for the "Resource Object" tag (see also action 14.17)
Action: 15.13 NCC
CEEC Report version 6 will be formatted into index data store with a hypertext tool installed which can be used to search the report.
Action: 15.14 Milan Sterba, Rob Blokzijl, Tony Bates
To coordinate and review the submissions for version 7 of the Connectivity Report.
Action: 15.15 Milan Sterba, NCC, RARE SEC
To produce version 6 of the report. NCC to print it, RARE SEC to copy and distributed by RARE SEC/NCC
Action: 15.16 Tony Bates
Publish straw 2 paper for comments and request volunteers to undertake some of the work.
Action: 15.17 Glenn Kowack and Tony Bates
Write a top level introduction for the user as an add-on to the GISS paper once it has been written.
Action: 15.18 NCC
To come up with a suitable solution to the problem of splitting blocks in the RIPE database when only some of the networks are to be routed.
Action: 15.19 Peter Lothberg
To draft document on Inter-AS local information.
Action: 15.20 Tony Bates and Daniel Karrenberg
To draft possible attributes for DMZ Networks.
Action: 15.21 Daniel Karrenberg
To draft document on colouring.
Action: 15.22 Stephan Biesbroeck, Duncan Rogerson and Harvard Eidnes
To evaluate in detail how CIDR deployment directly affects each of them.
Action: 15.23 RIPE chairs and NCC
Investigate possible future venues for forthcoming RIPE meetings and to report at the 16th RIPE meeting.