RIPE 62

RIPE NCC Services Working Group
Minutes from RIPE 62
RIPE Meeting: 62
Working Group: RIPE NCC Services
Status: Draft
Revision Number:

Content to the Chair of the working group.
Format to webmaster _at_ ripe _dot_ net.

RIPE 62 RIPE NCC Services Working Group

Amsterdam, 4 May 2011, 16:00 - 17:30
Co-Chairs: Kurtis Lindqvist, Bijal Sanghani

A: Administrative Matters

Kurtis Lindquist, RIPE NCC Services Working Group co-Chair, started the session at 16:05 local time. He welcomed the attendees, outlined the agenda and introduced the update from the RIPE NCC's senior management team.

B. RIPE NCC Update - RIPE NCC Senior Management Team

RIPE NCC's Axel Pawlik, Daniel Karrenberg, Andrew de la Haye, Paul Rendek and Jochem de Ruig gave updates on the RIPE NCC's current activities.

The presentations are available at:
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/131-Update_RIPE_NCC_R62.pptx

There were no questions.

C. Update on the 2007-1 Project - Arne Kiessling

Arne Kiessling from the RIPE NCC gave an update on the 2007-01 project.

This presentation is available at:
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/117-RIPE_62_Arne_Kiessling.pptx

Niall O'Reilly, University College Dublin, noted that he worked for an ERX holder and wondered, in terms of the three phases mentioned in Arne's presentation, if his organisation was in phase 3. He asked whether it would be possible to get some kind of parallelism into the processing of at least the low hanging fruit ERX space.

Arne answered that ERX space is excluded by policy from the 2007-01 project. He noted that if an ERX space holder wanted to sign a contract with a sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR) or become a member of the RIPE NCC then that would be fine.

Piotr Strzyz.ewski, Silesian University of Technology, asked how many of the "My Infrastructure" figures are AS Numbers

Arne replied that he didn't know this off the top of his head but could find out and give an exact figure.

Piotr Strzyz.ewski said that the real question is what is the percentage of AS numbers described as "My Infrastructure" per LIR because he had a strong feeling that a lot of LIRs had been assigned AS numbers just to publish their own PA space. He added that he thought it was quite insane right now that LIRs were charged in different ways for PA space and a single AS number and were charged an extra EUR 50 a year just to announce their space. He noted that if the percentage of LIRs holding AS numbers for themselves was quite high, then it was time to revise the charging scheme to include an AS number in the price of an LIR.

Arne answered that the idea was to look at who is holding the AS number and not what address space it is announcing. He noted that it might be that you see an LIR's allocation being de-aggregated and announced from several AS numbers. Arne explained that some of these AS numbers might not be assigned to the LIR but to actual end users and used to announce address space from the LIR's allocations. He added that in BGP, you wouldn't be able to tell this if is an LIR with ten AS numbers for their own infrastructure as it might be one AS number for the LIR plus nine for their customers.

Piotr Strzyz.ewski said that he thought that LIRs describe "My Infrastructure" for their infrastructure and for customers with PI space they describe it as "My Customer". He added that there are three types:"My End User", "My PI Space" and "My Infrastructure", and that he thought it was quite strange to pay an extra EUR 50 euro just for announcing the PI space.

 

Kurtis Lindquist, RIPE NCC Services Working Group Co-Chair, asked if it was the case that you could reclassify the AS to be counted as normal resources in the Charging Scheme. He noted that the LIR could contact a RIPE NCC Hostmaster and tell them which AS number is actually theirs.

Arne answered that this was the idea in the first step of phase 2, where LIRs could mark the resources they used for their own infrastructure.

Piotr Strzyz.ewski noted that he marked an AS number as his own infrastructure and was charged EUR 50 for this. He added that he knew this was in line with the Charging Scheme that has been approved by the General Meeting but that maybe it was time to change the Charging Scheme.

Kurtis Lindquist noted that the RIPE NCC Services Working Group does not decide the Charging Scheme as this is decided in the General Meeting. Kurtis added that he understands the point Piotr is making and that this might already be possible. He suggested continuing this discussion offline.

D. Resource Certification Update -- Alex Band

Alex Band from the RIPE NCC gave an update on the certification of Internet number resources.

This presentation is available at:
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/139-Cert-Update-RIPE62-ServicesWG.pdf

Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telecom noted that as an engineer he was seeing more product management glossiness and over-exaggeration than he would like. He asked that when the certification coverage figures are given, would it be possible to provide the number of Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) and prefixes in there.

Alex answered that it was 293.

Ruediger said that he would guess that perhaps a third or maybe even half of the IPv4 listed here is going to a single AS and LIR.

Alex commented that even without the resources certified by Deutsche Telecom that Ruediger was referring tohe thought there were still a lot of prefixes in there.

Ruediger commented that he would the last person to be unhappy about having lots of ROAs or certificates in there. He added that he would like to have a down-to-earth real number that gives a clearer picture of reality. He also commented that all of a sudden there is a road map, despite the fact there has not previously been one and it was not something that had been requested.

Alex noted that his slides were made in the previous week and did not include any of the numbers from Deutsche Telecom. He noted that he was happy with the numbers. He added that even without the spike from one AS you could see in the statistics link at ripe.net/certification, there was still a lot of space listed.

Alex noted that regarding the roadmap, while this might not have been requested by attendees at a RIPE Meeting, he had been in touch with many LIRs over the last year at RIPE Meetings and many other venues including at RIPE NCC Training Courses. He explained that the feedback from these members has been incorporated into the roadmap because it is members telling the RIPE NCC what they want. Even if this feedback has not been generated at a RIPE Meeting, it still counts.

Ruediger asked why are RIPE Meetings taking place and why was there a Certification Task Force for years to provide community input if when asked at RIPE Meetings about roadmaps it didn't happen. Rudeiger noted that while Alex was not in charge of developing Certification in previous years, progress has arrived but that the roadmap should have been presented at least a year ago.

Alex answered that everything that was discussed in the Certification Task Force led up to what was launched on 1 January 2011. He added that everything the RIPE NCC learned in the couple of months before that, and everything that the RIPE NCC is currently learning because people can use the certification system, is what the current roadmap is based on.

Kurtis noted that while he would like to continue the discussion, it would be best to move it to the mailing list as the session was already running really behind schedule.

E. Update on RIPE NCC Governance Documents, Transfer Document -- Athina Fragkouli

Athina Fragkouli from the RIPE NCC gave an update on RIPE NCC's governance documents.

This presentation is available at:
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/124-RIPE_NCC_Governance_Documents_and_Transfer_Document.pdf

Ruediger commented that he appreciated the cleaning, clarifying and classifying of the documents that Athina discussed in her presentation. He noted that there could be some more information on how these documents are handled and that the transparency could be approved. He noted that the draft document on closure was presented at RIPE 61 in Rome and he asked how that document, and others, are changed in response to feedback and finally approved.

Athina noted that the same procedure followed for RIPE Policies cannot be followed in this case as these documents are not RIPE policies. Athina noted that the RIPE NCC did appreciate Ruediger's feedback on this document and the version of that document that was published was based on his feedback. She added that if Ruediger wanted a more detailed track of the changes, that would be possible.

Rudeiger noted that his memory of the discussions in Rome and the final document seemed to be slightly different. He added that his question was how this document was finally approved and he asked whether it was approved on the mailing list, by the RIPE NCC Executive Board or by the RIPE NCC Managing Director. He asked whether there is something missing in the overall proves that might lead to improved transparency.

Athina replied that if anyone has comments on the published version of this document, please feel free to mention them as these documents are dynamic.

Ruediger replied that if these documents are really dynamic then some specific change control is required.

Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC Managing Director, noted that Rudeiger had wanted improvement of these things some time ago and this is what the RIPE NCC has done. Axel added that the RIPE NCC went through internal notes, documents and procedures in order to improve them and document what was there. He noted that these were put into a readable version and presented at the RIPE Meeting. He added that if anything was missing or unclear that people let the RIPE NCC know so the documents can be further improved.

Kurtis noted that he needed to cut the discussion because of time. He noted that in reference to the changes to these documents that Ruediger raised a valid point and suggested that the RIPE NCC should send the final version of these documents out for a comment before they are published. Kurtis noted that because these are RIPE NCC documents it is not the responsibility of the RIPE NCC Services Working Group to approve them. He explained that because these are legally binding contracts, they need to be approved by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.

F. RIPE NCC Arbitration Panel -- Keith Mitchell

Keith Mitchell, Internet Systems Consortium and RIPE NCC Arbiter, gave
an update from the RIPE NCC Arbitration Panel.

This presentation is available at:
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/140-Arbiters_Update_May_2011.pptx

Desiree Miloshevic, Oxford Internet Institute, noted that it appeared from her work so far on the RIPE NCC Membership Survey 2011 that it was a novelty to some RIPE NCC members to discover these arbitration services existed. She asked for clarification of the word "Contributor".

Keith replied that contributor referred to Local Internet Registry (LIR).

Kurtis Lindquist, RIPE NCC Services Working Group Co-Chair,noted that he had to close the session to allow RIPE NCC Members to attend the RIPE NCC General Meeting and vote. He closed the session at 18:07.