From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Nov 3 14:54:51 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1993 14:54:51 +0100 Subject: A Question In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 27 Oct 1993 08:40:50 -0400. <9310271240.AA15823@sbegonia.sura.net> Message-ID: <9311031354.AA01969@ncc.ripe.net> Jack, sorry about that late reply. First I have been away and then swamped. The answer has been a little longer than expected. Thus I CC it to the relevant RIPE working groups too fort their information. Daniel > Haven't mailed for awhile. I hope everything is going well over the > pond. I was wondering if you could fill me in on a little RIPE > philosophy. Tall order. :-) If we keep it down to specifics ... > Right now, its my understanding that authorized users can > automatically update the ripe database. If that is correct, how do you > make sure that what the authorized user is telling you is the correct > information. The original RIPE DB authorisation scheme: "No authorisation but *very* good audit trails." Anyone can change anything in the database but it will be logged. True, if you are mailicious and really determined you can do things and we will not be able to trace you far. But we will know what was done when and from where and we will be able to take appropriate action. We have decided to cross that particular bridge when we get to it. Together with a very quick response to queries about update problems this has worked rather well. After three years of experience with now 38,000 objects in the database and just under 1000 updates on an average working day I can not recall more than about a dozen incidents of unintentional changes being made by third parties. All of those have been resolved rather quickly and none has been intentional or malicious. Since we are now starting to do routing registry functions which are critical to operations we are starting to introduce some authorisation for the routing policy elements in the database. Some objects will not be changeable at all but by an authorised guardian. Currently these are some deprecated objects nad the autonomous system and community objects. Additionally some attributes will be guarded. The most important is the "aut-sys" attribute of the network object which defines membership of a network in an AS. These attribute will not be updated or updatable via the normal method but via a totally separate authorised method by the guardians of the respective autonomous system. The authorisation method for this will be Unix login security in most cases. You can read more about all this in ripe-81 ripe-96 ripe-89 ripe-72 and others. > An example: > > Say I'm a mean guy and I want to register a net that I do not own, and > is currently not in the RIPE database, to myself before my competitor > has registered it. How do you make sure that I'm allowed to register > this new net in the database? We do not. But we keep track of registry assignments separately from the database. If someone claims a network and has no assignment from the appropriate registry (either the NCC or a local registry) then he looses. > The only way I can check this today is > to see if the internic has given the net out and if it is registered > to the apporpriate person sending in the database addition. Same thing here. > Now if I'm > a provider, I do not "own" this address so things get a little > confusing. Not at all. The registry has the obligation to keep a record of what they assigned separately from the database and to register networks in the RIPE database no less than 24h after assignment. So there will be a trace. Also a flag will be raised if such an assignment is made for a net already in the database. At the NCC we keep simple SCCS files (yes I am *that* old) for the register. Together with the database audit trail this is more than adequate to document who did what when. We also keep an archive of all registry mail messages and faxes (full-text indexed with WAIS). We also have a filing cabinet used for those old fashioned hardcopy requests. It is not too full yet so we can keep office supplies and other stuff in it as well. :-) If there is a conflict both the datbase audit trails and the register of the registry concerned will be examined. If there are conflicts the latter is most likely to be ruled authoritative. To date such a case still has to happen - apart from administrative snafus which *do* happen once in a while. Daniel From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Fri Nov 19 11:56:59 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:56:59 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list Message-ID: <9311191057.AA06124@ncc.ripe.net> Dear All, Below is the draft list of local registries which will be published as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. Please check the contact details are correct and let us know if any changes are necessary. Regards, Anne - - - - - - - ---- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - --- - - -- ripe-XXX Nov 93 RIPE NCC - List of IP Local Registries ====================================== This is a list of European IP Local Registries known to the RIPE NCC. It is intended to clarify who you should contact if you need IP network numbers. All of the organisations listed allocate IP network numbers. The previously centralised procedures for obtaining IP network numbers from the Global Internet Registry (known as the InterNIC, formerly the DDN NIC) have been replaced by a distributed system. Blocks of Internet Network numbers are now delegated to the RIPE NCC, who in turn delegates blocks of numbers to Local Registries (IR's). The local IR's in turn, make most of the IP network number assignents in Europe. Local IR's are of two types. There are "Non-service provider" IR's and and "Service provider" IR's. If you do not intend to connect to the Internet in the foreseeable future or, at the present time, you do not have an IP service provider selected, then you should contact the "Non-service provider" registry for your country. If one does not appear to be listed, then you can direct any requests to the RIPE NCC. Alternatively if you have a service provider selected, you should contact them if you need IP numbers (there are some exceptions, since not all IP service providers allocate IP numbers). Some organisations appear twice in the list. This is because they fulfill the two functions outlined above. This is done in a fair and unbiased way. The list is sorted alphabetically by country code and the non-service provider registries are always listed last. There are no guarantees that this list is comprehensive. If you find that any of the information represented here is incorrect we would like to know about it as soon as possible. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the RIPE NCC at , telephone +31 20 592 5065, fax +31 20 592 5090. *AUSTRIA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - org: ACONET status: Provider person: Wilfried Woeber address: Computer Center - ACOnet address: Universitaetsstrasse 7 address: A-1010 Vienna country: Austria (at) phone: +43 1 436111 355 fax-no: +43 1 436111 170 e-mail: woeber at access.can.ac.at org: EUnet AT status: Provider person: Michael Haberler address: EUnet EDV Dienstleistungs Ges.m.b.h address: Schottenring 33 address: A-1010 Wien country: Austria (at) phone: +43 1 346184 fax-no: +43 1 3104462 e-mail: mah at ic.co.at org: EUnet AT (AT-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Waltraud Noficzer person: Georg Chytil address: Schottenring 33 address: A-1010 Wien country: Austria (at) phone: +43 1 346184 fax-no: +43 1 3104462 e-mail: hostmaster at eunet.co.at *BELGIUM- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: Belnet status: Provider person: Stephan Biesbroeck address: DPWB - SPPS address: Wetenschapsstraat 8 address: B-1040 Brussels country: Belgium (be) phone: +32 2 2383470 fax-no: +32 2 2305912 e-mail: stephan at cs.kuleuven.ac.be org: EUnet BE status: Provider person: Jean Huens address: Dept. Computerwetenschappen address: Celestijnenlaan 200A address: B-3001 Leuven country: Belgium (be) phone: +32 16 201015 fax-no: +32 16 205308 e-mail: jean at belgium.eu.net *BULGARIA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet BG status: Provider address: c/o Digital Systems person: Daniel Kalchev address: Neofit Bozveli 6 address: Varna - 9000 country: Bulgaria (bg) phone: +359 52 259135 fax-no: +359 52 234540 e-mail: daniel at digsys.bg org: BG EUnet Daniel Kalchev (BG-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider address: c/o Digital Systems person: Daniel Kalchev address: Neofit Bozveli 6 address: Varna - 9000 country: Bulgaria (bg) phone: +359 52 259135 fax-no: +359 52 234540 e-mail: daniel at digsys.bg *SWITZERLAND- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet CH status: Provider person: Simon Poole address: Zweierstrasse address: CH-8004 Zuerich country: Switzerland (ch) phone: +41 1 291 45 80 fax-no: +41 1 291 46 42 e-mail: poole at chuug.ch org: SWITCH Geschaeftsstelle status: Provider person: Thomas Brunner address: Limmatquai 138 address: CH-8001 Zurich country: Switzerland (ch) phone: +41 1 261 8179 fax-no: +41 1 261 8133 e-mail: ch-zone-contact at switch.ch org: CHUUG-EUnet (CH-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Simon Poole address: Zweierstrasse address: CH-8004 Zuerich country: Switzerland (ch) phone: +41 1 291 45 80 fax-no: +41 1 291 46 42 e-mail: hostmaster at nic.eunet.ch *CROATIA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: CARNet (CR-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Ivan Maric address: Croatian Academic and Research Network address: J.Marohnica bb address: Zagreb country: Croatia (cr) phone: +38 41 510-033 fax-no: +38 41 518-451 e-mail: ivan at smile.srce.hr *CZECH REPUBLIC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet Czech Republic status: Provider person: Jiri Orsag address: Prague Institute of Chemical Technology address: Computer Center address: Technicka 5 address: Prague 6 address: 166 28 country: Czech Republic (cz) phone: +42 2 3323242 fax-no: +42 2 3116278 e-mail: jiri.orsag at vscht.cz *GERMANY- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: BelWue status: Provider person: Peter Merdian address: Science Network of the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg address: Universitaet Stuttgart address: Rechenzentrum address: Allmandring 30 address: D-W-7000 Stuttgart 80 country: Germany (de) phone: +49 711 1319 129 fax-no: +49 711 682357 e-mail: merdian at rus.uni-stuttgart.dbp.de org: DFN status: Provider person: Arnold Nipper address: Pariser Strasse 44 address: D-10707 Berlin country: Germany (de) phone: +49 30 884299 46 fax-no: +49 30 884299 70 e-mail: jrau at DFN.DE org: EASINET status: Provider person: Stefan Fassbender address: IBM ENC address: Vangerowstr. 18 address: D-6900 Heidelberg country: Germany (de) phone: +49 6221 594 446 fax-no: +49 6221 593 300 e-mail: stf at easi.net org: EUnet DE status: Provider person: Andreas Schachtner address: Emil-Gigge-Str. 80 address: D-W-4600 Dortmund 50 country: Germany (de) phone: +49 231 755 2444 fax-no: +49 231 755 2386 e-mail: afs at walhalla.Germany.EU.net org: NetCS Informationstechnik GmbH status: Provider person: Clemens Schrimpe address: Feuerbachstrasse 47-49 address: D-W-1000 Berlin 41 country: Germany (de) phone: +49 30 856999 0 fax-no: +49 30 8555218 e-mail: csch at netCS.com org: NETMBX DE status: Provider person: Ralf Moritz address: netmbx, GbR. A. Fischer und R. Moritz address: Feuerbachstr. 47/49 address: D-W-1000 Berlin 41 country: Germany (de) phone: +49 30 855 53 50 phone: +49 172 268 21 40 fax-no: +49 30 855 53 95 e-mail: trepex at tmpmbx.netmbx.de org: XLINK status: Provider person: Arnold Nipper address: Universitaet Karlsruhe address: Fakultaet fuer Informatik address: Am Fasanengarten 5 address: D-76128 Karlsruhe country: Germany (de) phone: +49 721 608 4331 fax-no: +49 721 699 284 e-mail: nipper at xlink.net org: DE-NIC status: Non-Service Provider person: Ruediger Volk address: Universitaet Dortmund, Informatik IRB address: D-44221 Dortmund country: Germany (de) phone: +49 231 755 4760 fax-no: +49 231 755 2386 e-mail: hostmaster at deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE *DENMARK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: DENet DK status: Provider person: Jan P Sorensen address: Danish Computing Centre for address: Research and Education, UNI-C address: Building 305, DTH address: DK-2800 Lyngby country: Denmark (dk) phone: +45 42 88 39 99, 2520 phone: +45 45 93 83 55 ext. 2520 phone: +45 42 81 76 15 evening fax-no: +45 45 93 02 20 e-mail: Jan.P.Sorensen at uni-c.dk org: DKnet person: Robert Martin-Legene status: Provider address: Fruebjergvej 3 address: 2100 Koebenhavn OE country: Denmark (de) phone: +45 39 17 99 00 fax-no: +45 31 20 55 21 e-mail: robert at dknet.dk org: NORDUnet status: Provider person: Peter Villemoes address: c/o UNI-C address: Bygn. 305, DTH address: DK-2800 Lyngby country: Denmark (dk) Phone: +45 45 938355 Fax: +45 45 930220 e-mail: Peter.Villemoes at uni-c.dk org: DKnet (DK-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Robert Martin-Legene address: Fruebjergvej 3 address: DK-2100 Copenhagen O/ country: Denmark (dk) phone: +45 39 17 99 00 fax-no: +45 31 20 55 21 e-mail: netpasser at dkuug.dk *ESTONIA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EE-NIC status: Non-Service Provider person: Jaak Lippmaa address: Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics address: 10 Ravala Blvd. address: EE0001 Tallinn country: Estonia (ee) phone: +372-2-441304 fax-no: +372-2-440640 e-mail: jack at anubis.kbfi.ee *SPAIN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet ES/ Goya Servicios Telematicos, S.A. status: Provider person: Juan-Antonio Esteban (Business Manager) person: Inmaculada Pindado (Technical Manager) address: Goya Servicios Telematicos, S.A. address: C/ Clara del Rey 8, 1-7 address: E-28002 Madrid country: Spain (es) phone: +34 1 413 48 56 fax-no: +34 1 413 49 01 e-mail: jae at Spain.EU.net e-mail: inma at Spain.EU.net org: RedIRIS-FUNDESCO status: Provider person: Miguel Angel Sanz person: Ignacio Martinez address: Alcala, 61 address: 28014 Madrid country: Spain (es) Phone: +34 1 4351214 fax-no: +34 1 5781773 e-mail: ip at rediris.es org: RedIRIS-FUNDESCO (ES-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Miguel Angel Sanz person: Ignacio Martinez address: Alcala, 61 address: 28014 Madrid country: Spain (es) Phone: +34 1 4351214 fax-no: +34 1 5781773 e-mail: nic at rediris.es *FINLAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: DATANET status: Provider person: Seppo Noppari address: Telecom Finland address: Data Services address: PO BOX 228 address: 33101 TAMPERE country: Finland (fi) phone: + 358 31 243 2242 phone: + 358 400 625 470 fax-no: + 358 243 2211 e-mail: son at tele.fi org: EUnet FI status: Provider person: Petri Helenius address: EUnet Finland OY address: Hietalahdenranta 15 A 14 address: Punavuorenkatu 1 address: FI-00120 Helsinki country: Finland (fi) phone: +358 0 400 2060 phone: +358 49 425 722 fax-no: +358 0 622 2626 e-mail: helpdesk at eunet.fi org: FUNET FI status: Provider person: Jyrki Soini address: Finnish University and Research Network address: c/o Center for Scientific Computing address: P.O.Box 405 address: FIN-02101 ESPOO country: Finland (fi) phone: +358 0 457 2704 fax: +358 0 457 2302 e-mail: Jyrki.Soini at funet.fi org: Oulu Telephone Company status: Provider person: Karttunen Jari Juha address: P.O. Box 30 address: SF-90101 Oulu country: Finland (fi) phone: +358 81 3134520 fax-no: +358 81 371057 e-mail: jjk at cs.tut.fi org: The Helsinki Telephone co. status: Provider person: E Salopuro address: Helsingin Puhelinyhdistys address: SO A508B address: PL 148, 00131 Helsinki country: Finland (fi) phone: +35 8 06063160 fax-no: +35 8 07011649 e-mail: org: EUnet FI Ltd (FI-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Petri Helenius address: EUnet Finland OY address: Hietalahdenranta 15 A 14 address: Punavuorenkatu 1 address: FI-00120 Helsinki country: Finland (fi) phone: +358 0 400 2060 phone: +358 49 425 722 fax-no: +358 0 622 2626 e-mail: helpdesk at eunet.fi *FRANCE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: INRIA EUnet France status: Provider person: Annie Renard address: Centre De Rocquencourt address: Domaine De Voluceau, BP 105, F-78153 address: Le Chesnay CEDEX country: France (fr) phone: +33 1 39 63 55 92 fax-no: +33 1 39 63 53 30 email: Annie.Renard at inria.fr org: OLEANE status: Provider person: Jean-Michel Planche address: 35 Boulevard de la Liberation address: VINCENNES address: Paris, F-94300 country: France phone: +33 1 43 28 32 32 fax-no: +33 1 43 28 46 21 email: jmp at apysoft.oleane.com org: France Telecom status: Provider person: Robert Benchimol address: DSI/SSPT address: Direction Generale address: Direction de Systeme d'Information address: 33, Avenue Du Maine address: 75755 Paris Cedex 15 country: France (fr) phone: +33 1 45 38 21 56 fax-no: +33 1 45 38 25 88 org: INRIA EUnet France (FR-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Annie Renard address: Centre De Rocquencourt address: Domaine De Voluceau, BP 105, F-78153 address: Le Chesnay CEDEX country: France (fr) phone: +33 1 39 63 55 92 fax-no: +33 1 39 63 53 30 email: Annie.Renard at inria.fr *GREECE- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet GR status: Provider person: S. Sartzetakis address: Foundation of Research and Technology Hellas address: Computer Science Institute address: Daidalou 36, P.O. Box 1385, address: Heraklion, Crete country: Greece 71110 (gr) phone: +30 81 221171 e-mail: stelios at csi.forth.gr *HUNGARY -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: SZTAKI (HU-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Nandor Horvath address: H-1132 Budapest address: Victor Hugo Str. 18-22 address: Budapest country: Hungary (hu) phone: +36 1 1497986 fax-no: +36 1 1297866 e-mail: hostmaster at sztaki.hu *IRELAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet IE status: Provider person: Michael Nowlan address: O'Reilly Institute address: Trinity College address: Dublin 2 country: Ireland (ie) phone: +353 1 671 9361 phone: +353 1 702 1787 fax-no: +353 1 677 2204 e-mail: mn at dec4ie.ieunet.ie org: HEAnet status: Provider person: Mike Norris address: 21 Fitzwilliam Square address: Dublin 2 country: Ireland (ie) phone: +353.1.612748 fax: +353.1.610492 e-mail: mnorris at ilrearn.ucd.ie org: IE EUnet (IE-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Michael Nowlan address: O'Reilly Institute address: Trinity College address: Dublin 2 country: Ireland (ie) phone: +353 1 671 9361 phone: +353 1 702 1787 fax-no: +353 1 677 2204 e-mail: mn at dec4ie.ieunet.ie *ISRAEL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: ILNET status: Provider person: Gil Ben-Noon address: DataServe Ltd address: 46 Negba St country: Israel 52282 (il). phone: +972 3 749199 fax-no: +972 3 5747547 e-mail: gil at ilnet.net org: Computer Centre of Tel-Aviv University (IL-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Hank Nussbacher address: Tel-Aviv University address: Ramat-Aviv country: Israel (il) phone: +972 3 6408309 fax-no: +972 3 6409118 e-mail: hank at vm.tau.ac.il *ICELAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: SURIS-ISnet/IS EUnet (IS-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Marius Olafsson address: University of Iceland address: Taeknigardi address: Dunhaga 5, 107 Reykjavik country: Iceland (is) phone: +354 1 694747 fax-no: +354 1 28801 e-mail: marius at rhi.hi.is *ITALY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: GARR Network Information Service (IT-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Antonio_Blasco Bonito address: c/o CNUCE Istituto del CNR address: Via Santa Maria, 36 address: I-56126 Pisa country: Italy (it) phone: +39 50 593360 fax-no: +39 50 904052 e-mail: info at nis.garr.it *LUXEMBOURG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet LU status: Provider person: Jacques Kirsch address: CRP-CU address: 162a, Avenue De La Faiencerie country: L- 1511 Luxemburg (lu) phone: +352 47 02 61 fax-no: +352 47 02 64 e-mail: kirsch at stein.crpcu.lu *SLOVENIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: MARNET SI status: Provider person: Oliver Popov address: Ministry of Science of Macedonia (MARNET Committee) address: Bihacka 8 address: 91000, Skopje country: Macedonia (mk) phone: +38 91 238610 fax-no: +38 91 235573 e-mail: pmfoliver%nubsk at uni-lj.si *NEDERLANDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: NLnet status: Provider person: Martijn Roos-Lindgreen address: Kruislaan 413 address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam country: The Netherlands (nl) phone: +31 20 5924245 fax-no: +31 20 5924199 e-mail: martijn at nluug.nl org: PHILIPS status: Provider person: Osman Khan address: Philips Components SERI address: Building BC136 address: NL-5600 MD Eindhoven country: The Netherlands (nl) phone: +31 40 723802 e-mail: khan at seri.philips.nl org: Unisource Business Networks (for EMPB) status: Provider person: Harold Rolfes address: PO Box 90934 address: NL-2509 LX The Hague country: The Netherlands (nl) phone: +31 70 371 1151 fax-no: +31 70 371 1338 e-mail: surf030 at kub.nl org: SURFnet bv (NL-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Erik Jan-Bos address: P.O. Box 19035 address: NL - 3501 DA Utrecht country: The Netherlands (nl) phone: +31 30 310290 fax-no: +31 30 340903 e-mail: netmaster at surfnet.nl *NORWAY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet Norway status: Provider person: Arne Asplem address: Forskningsparken address: Gaustadallen 21 address: N-0371 Oslo country: Norway (no) phone: +47-22-958327 fax-no: +47-22-604427 e-mail: aras at norway.eu.net org: TelePost Communication AS status: Provider person: Gunn Skogseth address: P.O.Box 335, Skoyen address: N-0212 Oslo country: Norway (no) phone: +47 22 73 37 00 fax-no: +47 22 73 37 10 e-mail: Gunn.Skogseth at telepost.telemax.no org: UNINETT (NO) status: Provider person: Havard Eidnes address: SINTEF Runit address: N-7034 Trondheim country: Norway (no) phone: +47 73 59 44 68 fax-no: +47 73 94 17 00 e-mail: Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no org: UNINETT (NO-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Havard Eidnes address: SINTEF Runit address: N-7034 Trondheim country: Norway (no) phone: +47 73 59 44 68 fax-no: +47 73 59 17 00 e-mail: Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no *POLAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet PL status: Provider person: Michael Bielicki address: PL-net sp. z o.o. (Ltd) address: c/o FPE, ul. Dluga 5 address: PL-00-263 Warszawa country: Poland (pl) phone: +48 2 635 63 86 fax-no: +48 2 635 63 86 e-mail: misio at plnet.uucp org: NASK (PL-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Ireneusz Neska Address: Warsaw University,Informatics Center address: Krakowskie Przedmiescie 26/28 address: 00-927 Warsaw country: Poland (pl) phone: +48 22 268000 phone: +48 22 200381 ext. 843 fax-no: +48 22 268000 e-mail: irek at frodo.nask.org.pl *PORTUGAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet PT status: Provider person: Jose Legatheaux Martins address: Portuguese Unix User's Group address: Av. 24 De Julho, 134, 7 address: P-1300 Lisboa country: Portugal (pt) phone: +351 1 395 06 42 fax-no: +351 1 397 18 76 e-mail: jalm at portugal.eu.net org: RCCN status: Provider person: Vasco Freitas address: Fundacao Calculo Cientifico Nacional (FCCN) address: Avenida do Brasil, 101 address: P-1799 Lisboa country: Portugal (pt) phone: +351 1 8481906 phone: +351 53 614404 fax-no: +351 53 612954 e-mail: vf at ce.fccn.pt org: FCCN PT (PT-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Graca Carvalho address: FCCN address: c/o Universidade do Minho address: Departamento de Informatica address: P-4719 Braga country: Portugal (pt) phone: +351 53 604475 phone: +351 53 614404 fax-no: +351 53 612954 e-mail: ip-adm at fccn.pt *ROMANIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EARN status: Provider person: Eugen Staicut address: Research Institute for Informatics address: Bd. Miciurin 8-10, Sector 1 address: Bucharest 71316 country: Romania (ro) phone: +40-0-652560 fax-no: +40-0-128539 e-mail: staicut at edvz.uni-linz.ac.at *RUSSIA and EX-SU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: Rosniiros (RU xSU-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Alexey Platonov person: Oleg Tabarovsky address: 1, Kurchatov sq. address: 123182 Moscow country: Russia (ru) phone: +7 095 1967278 fax-no: +7 095 1964984 e-mail: plat at kiae.su e-mail: olg at USSR.EU.net *SWEDEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: SWIPNET AB status: Provider person: Olle Wallner person: Jorgen Eriksson address: Box 6048 address: S-164 06 Kista country: Sweden (se) phone: +46 8 924040 (Jorgen Eriksson) phone: +46 8 934040 (Olle Wallner) e-mail: eri at swip.net org: TIPNET status: Provider person: Hakan Hansson address: Swedish Telecom / TIPnet address: Kaserntorget 11, 4th fl address: S-40335 GOTEBORG country: Sweden (se) phone: +46 31 7708485 fax-no: +46 31 112800 e-mail: ncc at tip.net org: Unisource Business Networks status: Provider person: Hakan Hansson address: c/o Unidata IP services TIPnet NCC address: Kaserntorget 11, 4th fl address: S-40335 GOTEBORG country: Sweden (se) phone: +46 31 7708485 fax-no: +46 31 112800 e-mail: ncc at tip.net org: SUNET/NORDUnet (SE-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Bjorn Eriksen address: Royal Institute of Technology address: S-100 44 Stockholm country: Sweden (se) phone: +46 8 7906513 fax-no: +46 8 102510 e-mail: ber at kth.se e-mail: hostmaster at sunet.se *SLOVENIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: ARNES status: Provider person: Avgust Jauk person: Marko Bonac address: E-5, Department for computer communications address: Jozef Stefan Institut address: Jamova 39 address: 61 111 Ljubljana country: Slovenia (si) phone: +38 61 159 199 ext. or 639 fax-no: +38 61 161 029 e-mail: jauk at arnes.si org: EUnet SI status: Provider person: Ivan Pepelnjak address: NIL Systems Integration and consulting Ltd. address: Leskoskova 4 address: SI-61000 Ljubljana country: Slovenia (si) phone: +38 61 105183 fax-no: +38 61 105381 e-mail: Ivan.Pepelnjak at nil.si *SLOVAKIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: EUnet Slovakia status: Provider person: Ivan Lescak address: c/o Comenius University Bratislava address: Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Computing centre address: Mlynska dolina address: Bratislava, 842 15 country: Slovakia (sk) phone: +42 7 725 306 fax-no: +42 7 725 882 e-mail: ivan at Slovakia.EU.net *TURKEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: Turkey status: Non-Service Provider person: Attila Ozgit address: Middle East Technical University address: Computer Center address: Inonu Bulvari, 06531 address: Ankara country: Turkiye (tr) phone: +90 4 210 1000 ext:2091-2092 fax-no: +90 4 210 1120 e-mail: ozgit at trmetu.bitnet e-mail: ozgit at letoon.cc.metu.edu.tr *UNITED KINGDOM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - org: GEC Marconi Group status: Provider person: P Stephenson person: Mr C J Helks address: GEC Computer Services Ltd. address: The Hollies address: Newport Road address: Stafford ST16 IBY country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 785 48131 Ex 229 phone: +44 785 48131 Ex 297 fax: +44 785 211148 e-mail: gecmar/G=Chris/S=Helks/O=GEC_Computer_Services_Ltd/OU=Network_Support at mhs.at tmail.com remarks: Registry for all GEC Marconi Companies org: DEMON status: Provider person: Cliff Stanford address: 42 Hendon Lane, Finchley, address: London, N3 1TT country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 81 349 0063 fax-no: +44 81 349 0309 e-mail: postmaster at demon.co.uk org: Mercury Communications Ltd (UK) status: Provider person: Richard Sizeland address: Data Network Services address: 1 Riverbank Way address: Great West Road address: Brentford address: Middlesex TW8 9RS country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 81 914 6174 fax-no: +44 81 914 6040 e-mail: org: PIPEX status: Provider person: Keith Mitchell address: Unipalm Ltd address: 216 Cambridge Science Park address: Milton Road address: Cambridge address: CB4 4WA country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 223 420002 fax-no: +44 223 426868 e-mail: keith at unipalm.co.uk org: UKnet / CNS status: Provider person: Ian Harding person: Peter Houlder address: Computing Laboratory address: University of Kent address: Canterbury address: Kent country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 227 475497 fax-no: +44 227 762811 e-mail: ih at uknet.ac.uk e-mail: pjh at uknet.ac.uk org: JANET NOSC (UK-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider person: Duncan Rogerson person: Kevin Hoadley address: 20 Guilford Street address: London WC1N 1DZ country: United Kingdom (uk) phone: +44 71 405 8400 fax-no: +44 71 242 1845 e-mail: hostmaster at nic.ja.net *UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For US requests please contact: org: InterNIC Registration Service (US-NIC) status: Non-Service Provider address: Network Solutions Inc. address: 505 Huntmar Park Drive,Herndon address: VA 22070 country: USA (us) phone: +1-703-742-4777 fax-no: +1-703-742-4811 e-mail: hostmaster at rs.internic.net -------------------------------end------------------------------------- From Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl Fri Nov 19 14:53:18 1993 From: Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl (Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 14:53:18 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 93 11:56:59 +0100. Message-ID: <9311191353.AA10932@surgeon.surfnet.nl> Anne, > Below is the draft list of local registries which will be published > as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. Please check the contact details > are correct and let us know if any changes are necessary. Thanks for this list, which seems very useful to me. I have three questions regarding this list: 1. Reading from the text accompaning the list it is not clear to me when an organisation can be added to the list. In other words what are the criteria for being on the list. E.g., is it possible that FooBar, Inc., is added to this list as a Provider, without further info? 2. You say that some organizations appear on the list twice, since they have the Provider and the Non-Provider role. Well, in the list for NL I only see SURFnet once. Or did I misunderstand this thing? 3. This is more or less a feeling-issue (and *no*, I am not a native speaker), but SURFnet is listed as "Non-Service Provider". This sounds to me as "Provider of a Non-Service". Maybe another word could be used, such as "NIC of last resort" or "Default NIC". But again, I am not a native speaker. > *NEDERLANDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > org: NLnet > status: Provider > person: Martijn Roos-Lindgreen > address: Kruislaan 413 > address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > country: The Netherlands (nl) > phone: +31 20 5924245 > fax-no: +31 20 5924199 > e-mail: martijn at nluug.nl > > org: PHILIPS > status: Provider > person: Osman Khan > address: Philips Components SERI > address: Building BC136 > address: NL-5600 MD Eindhoven > country: The Netherlands (nl) > phone: +31 40 723802 > e-mail: khan at seri.philips.nl > > org: Unisource Business Networks (for EMPB) > status: Provider > person: Harold Rolfes > address: PO Box 90934 > address: NL-2509 LX The Hague > country: The Netherlands (nl) > phone: +31 70 371 1151 > fax-no: +31 70 371 1338 > e-mail: surf030 at kub.nl > > org: SURFnet bv (NL-NIC) > status: Non-Service Provider > person: Erik Jan-Bos > address: P.O. Box 19035 > address: NL - 3501 DA Utrecht > country: The Netherlands (nl) > phone: +31 30 310290 > fax-no: +31 30 340903 > e-mail: netmaster at surfnet.nl __ Erik-Jan. From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Fri Nov 19 15:29:44 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 15:29:44 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1993 14:53:18 MET. <9311191353.AA10932@surgeon.surfnet.nl> Message-ID: <9311191429.AA06848@ncc.ripe.net> Erik-Jan, > Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl writes: > Anne, > > > Below is the draft list of local registries which will be published > > as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. Please check the contact details > > are correct and let us know if any changes are necessary. > > Thanks for this list, which seems very useful to me. > > I have three questions regarding this list: > > 1. Reading from the text accompaning the list it is not clear to me when > an organisation can be added to the list. In other words what are > the criteria for being on the list. E.g., is it possible that FooBar, > Inc., is added to this list as a Provider, without further info? > Organisations will only be added to the list if they are a local registry. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of service providers - to the contrary - this is a list of local registries only and it is important that the list is understood as a list of "local registries" and not service providers. To be on the list therefore, you will have to have received a block of numbers from the RIPE NCC for allocation outside your own organisation and have agreed to ripe-72. The answer to your question therefore, is no. > 2. You say that some organizations appear on the list twice, since they > have the Provider and the Non-Provider role. Well, in the list for NL > I only see SURFnet once. Or did I misunderstand this thing? Yep - sorry this is our mistake. I have added them to the list as a provider also. > > 3. This is more or less a feeling-issue (and *no*, I am not a native > speaker), but SURFnet is listed as "Non-Service Provider". This > sounds to me as "Provider of a Non-Service". Maybe another word > could be used, such as "NIC of last resort" or "Default NIC". But > again, I am not a native speaker. > I agree - what about "internet registry of last resort"? or "last resort registry". Bit long though. I dont think NIC is appropriate here. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Anne From poole at eunet.ch Fri Nov 19 15:37:26 1993 From: poole at eunet.ch (Simon Poole) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 15:37:26 +0100 (MET) Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: <9311191429.AA06848@ncc.ripe.net> from "Anne Lord" at Nov 19, 93 03:29:44 pm Message-ID: <199311191437.PAA20418@eunet.ch> > I agree - what about "internet registry of last resort"? or "last resort > registry". Bit long though. I dont think NIC is appropriate here. > Any other suggestions? Neutral registry? The problem is that "internet registry of last resort" probably implies the wrong thing. Simon From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Fri Nov 19 16:00:47 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 16:00:47 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1993 15:37:26 MET. <199311191437.PAA20418@eunet.ch> Message-ID: <9311191500.AA06974@ncc.ripe.net> > poole at eunet.ch (Simon Poole) writes: > > I agree - what about "internet registry of last resort"? or "last resort > > > registry". Bit long though. I dont think NIC is appropriate here. > > Any other suggestions? > > Neutral registry? > > The problem is that "internet registry of last resort" probably implies > the wrong thing. > > Simon To me "neutral registry" means that it would be possible to have more than one of these. "Registry of last Resort" implies that here is somewhere you can go to "in the last resort' (and that correctly reflects the role of these registries) and there would only be one such organisation. Anne From Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl Fri Nov 19 16:02:41 1993 From: Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl (Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 16:02:41 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 93 16:00:47 +0100. Message-ID: <9311191502.AA11392@surgeon.surfnet.nl> Anne, > > > I agree - what about "internet registry of last resort"? or "last resort > > > > > registry". Bit long though. I dont think NIC is appropriate here. > > > Any other suggestions? > > > > Neutral registry? > > > > The problem is that "internet registry of last resort" probably implies > > the wrong thing. > > To me "neutral registry" means that it would be possible to have more > than one of these. "Registry of last Resort" implies that here is somewhere > you can go to "in the last resort' (and that correctly reflects the role of > these registries) and there would only be one such organisation. "Registry of last Resort" sounds pretty neat to me! __ Erik-Jan. From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Nov 19 16:07:56 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 16:07:56 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1993 15:37:26 MET. <199311191437.PAA20418@eunet.ch> Message-ID: <9311191508.AA07018@ncc.ripe.net> > poole at eunet.ch (Simon Poole) writes: > > I agree - what about "internet registry of last resort"? or "last resort > > > registry". Bit long though. I dont think NIC is appropriate here. > > Any other suggestions? > > Neutral registry? > > The problem is that "internet registry of last resort" probably implies > the wrong thing. local internet registry of the last resort or for short last resort registry From robert at dknet.dk Fri Nov 19 17:56:33 1993 From: robert at dknet.dk (Robert Martin-Legene) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 17:56:33 +0100 (MET) Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: <9311191502.AA11392@surgeon.surfnet.nl> from "Erik-Jan.Bos@surfnet.nl" at Nov 19, 93 04:02:41 pm Message-ID: <199311191656.AA22170@ns.dknet.dk> Erik-Jan.Bos at surfnet.nl wrote: > >Anne, > >>> The problem is that "internet registry of last resort" probably implies >>> the wrong thing. >> >> To me "neutral registry" means that it would be possible to have more >> than one of these. "Registry of last Resort" implies that here is somewhere >> you can go to "in the last resort' (and that correctly reflects the role of >> these registries) and there would only be one such organisation. > >"Registry of last Resort" sounds pretty neat to me! > Agreed. I suppose most Non-Service Providers are Service Providers too. (I haven't checked this though.) This would give you 2 entries in the list, and thus the "wrong implication" wouldn't really be there. A remark at the top of the list, saying that you can always ask the last resort in case of questions (and of course the RIPE NCC (already mentioned)) would make it all up. -- Robert Martin-Legene, robert at dknet.dk DKnet, Fruebjergvej 3, DK-2100 Kobenhavn O, +45 39 17 99 00 From bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk Fri Nov 19 16:48:35 1993 From: bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk (bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 15:48:35 GMT Subject: DRAFT local registries list Message-ID: <9311191548.AA06849@buche> > "Registry of last Resort" sounds pretty neat to me! and me -- it's what we natives have been calling it over here for a while :-) Bob From Bjorn.Eriksen at sunet.se Fri Nov 19 20:10:32 1993 From: Bjorn.Eriksen at sunet.se (Bjorn Eriksen) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 20:10:32 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list Message-ID: <199311191910.UAA25612@sunic.sunet.se> The problem is that we are mixing what we refer to. With "Service Provider" we mean something that reflect the status of the provider, someone that do provide a specified service. With "No-service-provider" we instead mean the status of the customer, not a provider that provide no services, but a customer not connected to or involved with someone from the other group of service providers. Thus we just need to be consistant in the way we refer to the various objects, whaterver that means ... --Bjorn From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Sat Nov 20 12:49:23 1993 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 12:49:23 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list Message-ID: <00975D2C.233DB5A0.12056@cc.univie.ac.at> >Below is the draft list of local registries which will be published >as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. Please check the contact details >are correct and let us know if any changes are necessary. Wouldn't it be a natural place for many of us to do the "reverse" lookup of address-space to registry mapping? I know, it's in the Quarterlies, but I like things that I can grep/search on my machine. Good idea? Wilfried. From Piet.Beertema at EU.net Mon Nov 22 09:48:55 1993 From: Piet.Beertema at EU.net (Piet.Beertema at EU.net) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 09:48:55 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 93 14:53:18 +0100 . <9311191353.AA10932@surgeon.surfnet.nl> Message-ID: <9311220848.AA18234@mcsun.EU.net> 2. You say that some organizations appear on the list twice, since they have the Provider and the Non-Provider role. Well, in the list for NL I only see SURFnet once. Or did I misunderstand this thing? > org: SURFnet bv (NL-NIC) > status: Non-Service Provider > person: Erik Jan-Bos > address: P.O. Box 19035 > address: NL - 3501 DA Utrecht > country: The Netherlands (nl) > phone: +31 30 310290 > fax-no: +31 30 340903 > e-mail: netmaster at surfnet.nl Apart from that, in your place I wouldn't like to be called Provider of a Non-Service... ;-) Piet From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 10:23:34 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:23:34 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1993 16:15:01 MET. <9311191515.AA27215@philica.ica.philips.nl> Message-ID: <9311220923.AA00218@ncc.ripe.net> > Geert Jan de Groot writes: > On Fri, 19 Nov 93 14:53:18 +0100 Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl wrote: > > 3. This is more or less a feeling-issue (and *no*, I am not a native > > speaker), but SURFnet is listed as "Non-Service Provider". This > > sounds to me as "Provider of a Non-Service". Maybe another word > > could be used, such as "NIC of last resort" or "Default NIC". But > > again, I am not a native speaker. > > Would 'Service-Provider' and 'No Service-Provider' sound better to you? > > Geert Jan > Geert Jan, seems like the term "Registry of last resort" to describe the current "Non Provider" label agrees with a number of people. Unless anyone has any better suggestions I propose to go with this. anne From Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl Mon Nov 22 10:09:44 1993 From: Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl (Erik-Jan.Bos at SURFnet.nl) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 10:09:44 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 22 Nov 93 09:48:55 +0100. Message-ID: <9311220909.AA11898@surgeon.surfnet.nl> Piet, > 2. You say that some organizations appear on the list twice, since they > have the Provider and the Non-Provider role. Well, in the list for NL > I only see SURFnet once. Or did I misunderstand this thing? > > > org: SURFnet bv (NL-NIC) > > status: Non-Service Provider > > person: Erik Jan-Bos > > address: P.O. Box 19035 > > address: NL - 3501 DA Utrecht > > country: The Netherlands (nl) > > phone: +31 30 310290 > > fax-no: +31 30 340903 > > e-mail: netmaster at surfnet.nl > > Apart from that, in your place I wouldn't like to be > called Provider of a Non-Service... ;-) We had a thorough discussion on this already, with input from Native Speakers! Did your mailbox overflow :-)? __ Erik-Jan. From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 10:37:33 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:37:33 +0100 Subject: to those who sent in corrections .. Message-ID: <9311220937.AA00287@ncc.ripe.net> ..to the draft local-ir list: Just to let you know that if you sent in a correction to your contact details on the local-IR list that I have corrected your entry. thanks for the speedy responses. anne From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 13:04:11 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 13:04:11 +0100 Subject: DRAFT local registries list In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 20 Nov 1993 12:49:23 MET. <00975D2C.233DB5A0.12056@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <9311221204.AA00802@ncc.ripe.net> > "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" writes: > >Below is the draft list of local registries which will be published > >as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. Please check the contact details > >are correct and let us know if any changes are necessary. > > Wouldn't it be a natural place for many of us to do the "reverse" lookup > of address-space to registry mapping? > > I know, it's in the Quarterlies, but I like things that I can grep/searc > h > on my machine. Good idea? Makes for too many changes to the list and user confusion. Also I do not want to publish this widely. This will only lead to a situation where one has to have many blocks delegated to be "bigger" than others. Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 14:45:08 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 14:45:08 +0100 Subject: Changing the CIDR Assignment Strategy Message-ID: <9311221345.AA01307@ncc.ripe.net> We will circulate a revision of ripe-72 shortly. We suggest to change the recommendation for address space reservations. Below we give the reasoning behind this. Discussion Welocme For the NCC team Daniel Previously the RIPE NCC has recommended IRs to reserve some address space contiguous to assigned address space for future expansion. The reasoning was that this would further aggregation and keep the routing table sizes down in the long term, while being slightly inefficient on address space usage in the short term. However recently we had to start delegating blocks from 194.x.y, when 193.x.y had slightly more than 25% of address space assigned. This caused us to review assignements and we have found a lot of reserved address space causing fragmentation. This experience suggests that the address space usage problems created by those reservations outweigh the possible aggregation benefits. If a block of equal size to the one actually assigned is reserved, address space utilisation is halved in return for a possible 50% reduction in routing table size. Relatively speaking this looks like a good tradeoff. In absolute terms however substantial amounts of address space are traded in to save 1 (in words: one) additional routing table entry. If some address space is reserved and exactly that amount is needed later the reserved space can be assigned and aggregated into the same CIDR route, not expanding the routing tables at all, saving one additional routing table entry. Note that this small absolute gain can only be realised if the reserved space indeed fits the need exactly! If no reservation is made at all and more address space is needed at a later stage, another block of appropriate size can always be assigned. Since there are now two blocks these can be aggregated into two routes instead of the one which would have resulted if a suitable reservation had been made. The effect of the reserved address space is not only decreased utilisation but also creates fragmentation of the address space which makes it difficult to find block of appropriate size for new requests. Considering this it does not make sense to reserve anything but very small amounts of address space or unused parts of CIDR blocks. Thus the current recommendation is to reserve only address space that is needed to "round" the requested space to the next suitable block boundary. From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 15:04:15 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:04:15 +0100 Subject: The European Internet Registry System Message-ID: <9311221404.AA01388@ncc.ripe.net> Dear IRs, we are about to circulate the long overdue revisions of ripe-72 and ripe-85. Shortly there will also be a new document titled "The European Internet Registry System" giving general information about the European Internet Registry framework. This will be targeted to give new people background information and explain terminology: IR, regional IR, Local IR: provider, last-resort ... Assuming there is general consensus about the content I would like to publish those documents by December 6th. Otherwise they will have to wait until the January RIPE meeting. I hope this won't be necessary though because the old docs are really in need of revision. Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 15:04:29 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:04:29 +0100 Subject: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures (ripe-72++) Message-ID: <9311221404.AA01398@ncc.ripe.net> Dear IRs European Internet Registry: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures Daniel Karrenberg Marten Terpstra Document ID: ripe-xx Obsoletes: ripe-72 ABSTRACT This document describes the procedures for the assignment of IP address space by European local Inter- net Registries. Introduction The originally centralised procedures for obtaining IP network numbers from the Global Internet Registry (known as the InterNIC, previously the DDN NIC) have been replaced by a distributed alloca- tion scheme. Blocks of Internet network numbers are now delegated by the Global Internet Registry to the RIPE NCC, who in turn delegates blocks of numbers to local Internet Registries (IRs). The local IRs in turn, make the majority of IP network number assignments across Europe. The procedures described in this document are designed to ensure fair distribution and optimal utilisation of the available address space. ripe-xx.txt - 2 - Class C Address Space Allocation Procedures The RIPE NCC currently has been delegated the following class C net- work number ranges: 192.162.0.0 - 192.162.255.0 192.163.0.0 - 192.168.255.0 193.0.0.0 - 193.255.255.0 194.0.0.0 - 194.255.255.0 Local IRs accepting a block of class C numbers agree to adhere to the following procedures: 1. The RIPE NCC will delegate blocks of class C networks to local IRs. Normally the size of a delegation will be 256 contiguous networks on a 16-bit boundary. This can be requested from . If the local registry already has delegated blocks a summary of usage of these blocks has to be submitted at the same time. 2. Full information about reassigned network numbers must be reported back to the RIPE NCC in RIPE database format. The complete entries should be sent immediately after assignment, certainly not later than one working day after assignment, to . This will cause the information to be included in the RIPE database automatically and an acknowledge- ment message to be returned. 3. Local IRs are required to have reliable and expedient Internet electronic mail connectivity in order to exchange messages among themselves, with requestors and with the RIPE NCC. E- mail is the preferred method of communication for registry pur- poses, followed by FAX. Paper mail is to be avoided wherever possible. Telephone communications should be confirmed by e- mail for documentation purposes and to avoid misunderstandings whenever appropriate. 4. IRs will keep records of correspondence and information exchanges in conjunction with the registry function for later review and the resolution of disputes. IRs will hold this information in strict confidence and use it only to review requests and in audit procedures or to resolve disputes. ripe-xx.txt - 3 - 5. Requests for address space should be reasonable and accompanied by enough technical details to justify the amount of address space requested. If at all possible requesters should be encouraged to submit their addressing/subnetting plan because this provides an excellent means of assessing whether the address space is going to be used effectively. 6. Requesters already holding address space are required to list the address space they already hold and give a summary of current address space utilisation which shows why additional address space is needed. All IRs should prevent stockpiling of address space. 7. It is recommended that assignment of a block of more than 32 class C network numbers (13 or more bits of address space) should only be made after a second opinion has been obtained from the RIPE NCC at . This second opinion shall be documented with the request for later review. 8. On first request from the RIPE NCC, the class C network numbers not yet reassigned, must be returned to the RIPE NCC. 9. The RIPE Database is the only authoritative registry for the status of a particular network number from a RIPE NCC delegated block. A network number from such a block is considered unas- signed if it is not registered in the RIPE database. 10. Reassignment of class C network numbers should be done in a manner that facilitates Supernetting (see next section). 11. Requests shall be reviewed using Internet-wide guidelines used by all Internet registries as described in documents such as RFC1466. The local registries shall strive to align their review process with other local registries and the RIPE NCC. 12. Wherever possible IRs should use the European form in order to make review and passing of requests between IRs easy. The form should be translated and adapted to local circumstances as necessary. Aggregation (CIDR) IRs reassigning IP network numbers need to be familiar with RFC1519. This document can be obtained from the RFC section of the RIPE docu- ment store or other RFC servers. ripe-xx.txt - 4 - Classless addressing aims to reduce the increase of routing table size in the current Internet. It creates a hierarchy of IP network numbers, which can then be aggregated resulting in less routing table entries in routing equipment. This proposal has formally been adopted by the IAB/IESG/IETF, and it has an impact on the address assignment strategy, which is documented in RFC1466 and RFC1467. Here is how it works: If an organisation A needs 8 class C network numbers, the numbers should be given out in such a way that the routing information for each of these 8 networks could appear as one entry with the correct mask in routing tables. More concretely: Service provider S hands out networks 192.24.8 through 192.24.15 to organisation A. These networks can then appear in routing equipment as a supernet route to 192.24.8 with mask 255.255.248.0. This way 8 class C network numbers appear as one routing table entry. The guidelines that can be derived from the Supernetting proposal are: 1. IRs shall allocate class C network numbers in blocks suitable for aggregation. The blocks should be bit-aligned, i.e. con- tiguous, size a power of 2 and start on a multiple of the block size. 2. The blocks allocated to an organisation should be sufficient for a reasonable expected growth over the immediate future. Gaps caused by rounding to the next reasonably sized CIDR block can be reserved for the organisation holding the preceeding addresses. Note that this differs from earlier recommendations to reserve address space for expected growth in the medium term. 3. Multi-homed organisations may obtain address space from one of their providers, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations are strongly encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. Class B Network Number Allocation Procedure European organisations can obtain class B networks numbers from the RIPE NCC only. Local IRs and end-user organisations can request Class B network numbers on a case-by-case basis from the RIPE NCC. It is preferred if requests are channeled via the local IRs ripe-xx.txt - 5 - initially. The procedures are similar to the class C procedures outlined above which apply wherever applicable. In addition the fol- lowing extra considerations have to be made: 1. Because class B address space is a critical resource, a request for a class B network number must be accompanied by a justifi- cation in terms of the requesting organisation's size, current network size and expected network growth. Submission of the addressing/subnetting plan detailing the proposed use of the address space is mandatory. 2. The requester should also make clear why they cannot use a block of class C network numbers to achieve their goals. Please see the European IP Network Number Application Form for more details on class B network number requests. This form must be used for class B address space requests. Class A Network Number Allocation Procedure Class A network numbers are assigned extremely rarely and only in cases where there is a technical need to have more than 65000 hosts on a single physical network. Review takes place on a global scale and takes considerable time. If you are convinced you need a class A network number, please contact the NCC. If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to call or mail us at hostmaster at ripe.net. ripe-xx.txt From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Nov 22 15:10:10 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:10:10 +0100 Subject: Procedures for DNS Delegation in the IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain Message-ID: <9311221410.AA01408@ncc.ripe.net> European Internet Registry: Procedures for DNS Delegation in the IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain Daniel Karrenberg Marten Terpstra November 1993 Document-ID: ripe-zz Obsoletes: ripe-85 ABSTRACT This document describes the procedures for the delegation of zones in European subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA. Introduction The domain tree below IN-ADDR.ARPA is used to facilitate "reverse" mapping from IP addresses to domain names [RFC883, RFC1033]. This document describes the procedures for the delegation of zones in European subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA. Randomly Assigned Numbers There are two groups of European network numbers: hierarchically assigned numbers and randomly assigned ones. The hierarchically assigned numbers are part of the 193.x.y.0 and 194.x.y.0 network blocks. All other network numbers, class A, class B and 192.x.y.0 class Cs are randomly assigned. Subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA describing reverse mappings for randomly assigned networks have to be handled globally and are handled by the InterNIC . ripe-zz.txt - 2 - Hierarchically Assigned Numbers The subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA corresponding to the hierarchically assigned network numbers are administered by the RIPE NCC. These network numbers currently are 193.0.0.0 - 194.255.255.0 Although the procedures described below refer to the 193.x.y block of addresses, for clarity they apply to all such blocks. With the assignment of class C network numbers following RFC1466, large chunks of the address space are delegated to regional Internet Registries. The regional registries delegate blocks of class C net- work numbers to local Internet Registries. In this way a hierarchy in the address space is created, which is similar to the hierarchy in the domain name space. Due to this hierarchy the reverse DNS map- ping can also be delegated in a similar model as used for the normal Domain Name System. For instance, the RIPE NCC has been delegated the complete class C address space starting with 193. It is therefore possible to delegate the 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain completely to the RIPE NCC, instead of each and every reverse mapping in the 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain to be registered with the InterNIC. This implies that all 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations in turn will be done by the RIPE NCC. Even better, since local registries usually receive blocks of 256 class C networks from the RIPE NCC, the NCC can delegate the reverse registrations for such complete blocks to these local regis- tries. This implies that customers of these service providers no longer have to register their reverse domain mapping with the InterNIC or the NCC, but the service providers have authority over that part of the reverse mapping. This decreases the workload on the InterNIC and the RIPE NCC, and at the same time improves the service a provider can offer its customers by improving response times for reverse mapping changes. In order to provide a reliable service some procedures have been agreed and must be followed in order to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. These procedures are covered in the next section. Procedures 1. A secondary nameserver at ns.ripe.net is mandatory for immediate subdomains of the 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain. ripe-zz.txt - 3 - 2. Because of the importance of correct reverse address mapping, for all delegated blocks a good set of secondaries must be defined. There should be at least 2 nameservers for all blocks delegated, excluding the RIPE NCC secondary. Operators of the primary nameservers should be familiar with RFC1537. 3. The delegation of an immediate subdomain of 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain corresponding to a block of 256 class C network numbers can be requested by sending a request confirming that the procedures described in this document will be followed to . The request should be accompanied by a domain object for the RIPE database with all necessary contact and nameserver information. An example domain object can be found at the end of this document. 4. When receiveing such a request the RIPE NCC will forward data about any currently registered reverse zones inside this block to the registry. After addition of these by the registry, the NCC will check the working of the reverse server. 5. Once everything is set up properly, the NCC will set up ns.ripe.net as secondary nameserver, delegate the block, and include the domain object in the RIPE database. 6. All reverse servers for blocks must be reachable from the the Internet. In short, all servers must meet similar connec- tivity requirements as top-level domain servers. 7. As with all domain name space, running the reverse server for class C blocks does not imply that one controls that part of the reverse domain. It only implies that one administers that part of the reverse domain. If after repeated complaints the delegated name space is still not administered properly the RIPE NCC has to revoke the delegation. 8. Before adding individual nets, the administrator of a reverse domain must check whether all servers to be added for these nets are indeed set up properly. 9. There are some serious implications when a customer that uses address space out of the service provider class C blocks, moves to another service provider. The previous service provider cannot force its ex-customer to change network addresses, and will have to continue to provide the appropriate delegation records for reverse mapping of these addresses, even though they are no longer belonging to a customer. ripe-zz.txt - 4 - 10. The registration of the reverse zones for individual class C networks will usually be done by the registry administering the class C block this network has been assigned from. The registry will make the necessary changes to the zone files. The registry will also make sure that the network objects in the RIPE database for these networks are updated with the correct "rev-srv" attributes. 11. In case the RIPE NCC receives a request for the reverse zone of an individual class C network out of a block that has been delegated, the request will be forwarded to the mail address specified in the SOA RR for the zone concerned. 12. The NCC advises the following timers and counters for direct subdomains of 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA: 8 hours refresh (28800 seconds), 2 hours retry (7200 seconds), 7 days expire (604800 seconds) and 1 day Time To Live (86400 seconds). The retry counter should be lowered where connectivity is unstable. Above procedures are defined to ensure the necessary high availabil- ity for the reverse domains, and to minimise confusion. The NCC will ensure fast response times for addition requests, and will in principle update the 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain at least once per working day, if needed. Example domain object to request a block delegation domain: 202.193.in-addr.arpa descr: Pan European Organisations class C 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: marten at ripe.net 930319 source: RIPE Delegation of Individual Network Zones The registration of the reverse zones for individual class C net- works will usually be done by the registry administering the class C block this network has been assigned from. ripe-zz.txt - 5 - If the subdomain has not yet been delegated to the registry con- cerned the RIPE NCC will register the individual networks. However this service is only provided at a "best-effort" level and no ser- vice guarantees are given. The local registries should whenever possible provide this service locally. The NCC uses the following procedures for the delegation of indivi- dual network zones. Local registries should use similar guidelines. 1. Because of the importance of correct reverse address map- ping, for all delegated networks a good set of secondaries must be defined. There should be at least two nameservers for all networks delegated. 2. Each "rev-srv" attribute in the RIPE database should ONLY con- tain one fully qualified domain name of a nameserver which is authoritative for the reverse zone for this network. There should be one "rev-srv" attribute for each nameserver. 3. If a network has or is going to have any external connec- tivity, it is strongly recommended that it has at least one reverse nameserver that can be reached from all of the Inter- net. 4. Although we do our best to check the setup of the nameservers, these do not receive the same level of scrutiny as nameservers for blocks of class C network numbers. It is the responsibility of the network contacts to ensure proper opera- tion. 5. Any problems regarding the reverse zones in 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA should be reported to . The NCC also suggests that similar procedures are set up for the delegation of reverse zones for individual class C networks from the registries to individual organisations. If you have any questions or suggestions concerning this document, please contact the RIPE NCC at . ripe-zz.txt From Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Tue Nov 23 10:46:59 1993 From: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net (Marten Terpstra) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 10:46:59 +0100 Subject: Syntax errors in database Message-ID: <9311230946.AA02424@ncc.ripe.net> Folks, As promised at the last RIPE meeting, we have run a full syntax check on the complete database, and the results of that check are available for anonymous ftp. The files are split by object type, and contain only objects that generated a warning or error. If you have some time to maybe look at some of your info, please look in: ftp.ripe.net:ripe/dbase/errors/ If you have questions about errors/warnings found, please let us know. -Marten From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Nov 23 15:52:43 1993 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 15:52:43 MET Subject: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures (ripe-72++) In-Reply-To: <9311221404.AA01398@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 22, 93 3:04 pm Message-ID: <9311231452.AA03259@jolly.nis.garr.it> Daniel writes: > > Dear IRs Here are some brief comments: - I think this document should briefly say something about the practice of splitting a block after it has been assigned. It is better to touch that problem here, or at least make a reference to another document. > 3. Multi-homed organisations may obtain address space from one of > their providers, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is > appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations > are strongly encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. Again, since this is public document which anybody can read, a few words to clarify the meaning of "multi-homed organisation" are necessary, I guess. Here is my attempt to phrase it. 3. Multi-homed organisations (i.e. organization having, or planning to have, multiple IP connections to the Internet, trough more than one IP service provider) may obtain address space from one of their providers, their local registry of last resort, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations are strongly encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Nov 23 16:12:28 1993 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 16:12:28 MET Subject: Procedures for DNS Delegation in the IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain In-Reply-To: <9311221410.AA01408@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 22, 93 3:10 pm Message-ID: <9311231512.AA03607@jolly.nis.garr.it> Some comments on: > European Internet Registry: > Procedures for DNS Delegation > in the IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain > ... > Document-ID: ripe-zz > Obsoletes: ripe-85 > Subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA describing reverse mappings for randomly > assigned networks have to be handled globally and are handled by the > InterNIC . The right e-mail address of that particular service, as far as I know, is inaddr at INTERNIC.NET To distinguish services I propose to use inaddr at ripe.net for mailing to the NCC on that subject. (an "in-addr" alias is also useful). Changes in this document: > 3. The delegation of an immediate subdomain of 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA > domain corresponding to a block of 256 class C network numbers > can be requested by sending a request confirming that the > procedures described in this document will be followed to > . The request should be accompanied by a ^^^^^^^^^^ inaddr > domain object for the RIPE database with all necessary contact > and nameserver information. An example domain object can be > found at the end of this document. Something to avoid non communicating: > 11. In case the RIPE NCC receives a request for the reverse zone of > an individual class C network out of a block that has been > delegated, the request will be forwarded to the mail address > specified in the SOA RR for the zone concerned. %% specified in the SOA RR for the zone concerned and to the %% e-mail address of the specified zone-c person if different. > 5. Any problems regarding the reverse zones in 193.IN-ADDR.ARPA > should be reported to . ^^^^^^^^^^ inaddr ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Nov 24 12:53:11 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 12:53:11 +0100 Subject: Procedures for DNS Delegation in the IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 23 Nov 1993 16:12:28 +0700. <9311231512.AA03607@jolly.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9311241153.AA02659@ncc.ripe.net> > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > > Subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA describing reverse mappings for randomly > > assigned networks have to be handled globally and are handled by the > > InterNIC . > > The right e-mail address of that particular service, as far as I know, > is inaddr at INTERNIC.NET Sorry but that is not right. To quote from [netinfo/in-addr-template.txt] [04/93]: Completed templates and questions can be directed to Hostmaster at HOSTMASTER at INTERNIC.NET, or mailed to: Network Solutions InterNIC Registration Service 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 22070 I think we shouldn't confuse people with too many different aliases. With hindsight even having ncc and hostmaster here may be too much. > Something to avoid non communicating: > > 11. In case the RIPE NCC receives a request for the reverse zone of > > an individual class C network out of a block that has been > > delegated, the request will be forwarded to the mail address > > specified in the SOA RR for the zone concerned. > %% specified in the SOA RR for the zone concerned and to the > %% e-mail address of the specified zone-c person if different. I will add that. Thank you for your comments! Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Nov 24 13:06:43 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 13:06:43 +0100 Subject: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures (ripe-72++) In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 23 Nov 1993 15:52:43 +0700. <9311231452.AA03259@jolly.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9311241206.AA02745@ncc.ripe.net> > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > Daniel writes: > > > > Dear IRs > > Here are some brief comments: > > - I think this document should briefly say something about the practice > of splitting a block after it has been assigned. > It is better to touch that problem here, or at least make a reference > to another document. I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean splitting because of policy? > > > 3. Multi-homed organisations may obtain address space from one of > > their providers, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is > > appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations > > are strongly encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. 3. has been rephrased and 4. added: 3. Organization having multiple IP connections to the Internet, trough more than one IP service provider are called "multi- homed". Multi-homed organistations may obtain address space from one of their providers, their local registry of last resort, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations are encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. 4. Organisations operating a network which spans several contries may obtain address space from a service provider, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is appropriate to their network confi- guration. In many cases it will be best to obtain addresses for the whole network from the provider operating the main connection of the multi-national network to the Internet. When in doubt, contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Nov 25 10:05:57 1993 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 10:05:57 MET Subject: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures (ripe-72++) In-Reply-To: <9311241206.AA02745@ncc.ripe.net>; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Nov 24, 93 1:06 pm Message-ID: <9311250905.AA14463@jolly.nis.garr.it> > > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > > Daniel writes: > > > > > > Dear IRs > > > > Here are some brief comments: > > > > - I think this document should briefly say something about the practice > > of splitting a block after it has been assigned. > > It is better to touch that problem here, or at least make a reference > > to another document. > > I don't understand what you mean? > Do you mean splitting because of policy? An organization may have a certain network deployment plan and requires a block to satisfy its requirements. After that some of those network numbers may be assigned to subsidiaries or partners which require different registrations because of policy (aut-sys, community, ...) or to differentiate responsabilities (admin-c, tech-c, ...). In those cases the solution is to split the block. This issue needs to be mentioned in the document, I think. > > > 3. Multi-homed organisations may obtain address space from one of > > > their providers, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is > > > appropriate to their network configuration. These organisations > > > are strongly encouraged to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. > > 3. has been rephrased and 4. added: > > 3. Organization having multiple IP connections to the Internet, > trough more than one IP service provider are called "multi- > homed". Multi-homed organistations may obtain address space > from one of their providers, their local registry of last > resort, the RIPE NCC, or the global NIC, as is appropriate to > their network configuration. These organisations are encouraged > to contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. > > > 4. Organisations operating a network which spans several contries > may obtain address space from a service provider, the RIPE NCC, > or the global NIC, as is appropriate to their network confi- > guration. In many cases it will be best to obtain addresses > for the whole network from the provider operating the main > connection of the multi-national network to the Internet. When > in doubt, contact the RIPE NCC for guidance. I like that! ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Nov 25 13:11:55 1993 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 13:11:55 EET Subject: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures (ripe-72++) In-Reply-To: <9311250905.AA14463@jolly.nis.garr.it>; from "Antonio_Blasco Bonito" at Nov 25, 93 10:05 am Message-ID: <9311251111.AA18715@danbo.digsys.bg> > > > - I think this document should briefly say something about the practice > > > of splitting a block after it has been assigned. > > > It is better to touch that problem here, or at least make a reference > > > to another document. > > > > I don't understand what you mean? > > Do you mean splitting because of policy? > > An organization may have a certain network deployment plan and requires > a block to satisfy its requirements. After that some of those network > numbers may be assigned to subsidiaries or partners which require different > registrations because of policy (aut-sys, community, ...) or to differentiate > responsabilities (admin-c, tech-c, ...). In those cases the solution > is to split the block. This issue needs to be mentioned in the document, > I think. Perhaps the best approach is for such an organization to return the "unused" address space back to the registry from where they got it. This way it can be allocated to another organization. Daniel Kalchev BG-NIC From Anne.Lord at ripe.net Mon Nov 29 17:30:26 1993 From: Anne.Lord at ripe.net (Anne Lord) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 17:30:26 +0100 Subject: Document Announcement Message-ID: <9311291630.AA05211@ncc.ripe.net> New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document below is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-101 Title: List of Internet Registries in Europe Author: RIPE NCC Date: 29 November 1993 Format: TXT=29262 Short content description ------------------------- This is a list of Local Internet Registries in Europe. The document is intended to clarify who to contact if IP network numbers are needed. -------------- next part -------------- FTP Access ---------- All RIPE documents and Internet RFC`s are available via anonymous FTP from host ftp.ripe.net. Type "ftp ftp.ripe.net". Login with username "anonymous" supplying your email address as the password. After logging in, type "cd ripe/docs/ripe-docs" followed by the command "get ripe-101.txt". Electronic Mail Retrieval of Documents -------------------------------------- Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to: mail-server at ripe.net with "send HELP" in the body text. RIPE NCC Interactive Information Server --------------------------------------- Type "telnet host info.ripe.net". This is a menu driven service allows the document store to be browsed. After reading documents you are prompted as to whether you would like to receive an email copy of the document you have just read. If you would, you simply enter your email address and the document will be mailed to you. Below are details of alternative methods of access. Gopher Access ------------- The same documents are available via a "gopher" server at "gopher gopher.ripe.net". WAIS Access ----------- There is also a "WAIS" server at wais.ripe.net, where there is a WAIS index for RIPE documents "ripe-docs.src" WWW Access ---------- For those who wish to add this home page at the RIPE NCC to their own customized home pages, it can be accessed as: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/default.html MIME Mail Reader ---------------- Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RIPE document. -------------- next part -------------- SEND ripe/docs/ripe-docs/ripe-101.txt From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Nov 30 17:16:30 1993 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 17:16:30 +0100 Subject: NIC Handles In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 24 Nov 1993 17:56:00 MET. Message-ID: <9311301616.AA01599@ncc.ripe.net> After some more discussion with the InterNIC it looks like we cannot avoid giving *everyone* in the RIPE database a handle soon. Otherwise the database exchange with the InterNIC would be too difficult. So contrary to what I said last week we will need to do that soon. I will send out a draft RIPE document later today. Please comment a.s.a.p. so that we can act quickly. Daniel From Bjorn.Eriksen at sunet.se Tue Nov 30 17:56:59 1993 From: Bjorn.Eriksen at sunet.se (Bjorn Eriksen) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 17:56:59 +0100 Subject: NIC Handles Message-ID: <199311301657.RAA19435@sunic.sunet.se> >After some more discussion with the InterNIC it looks like we cannot >avoid giving *everyone* in the RIPE database a handle soon. Otherwise >the database exchange with the InterNIC would be too difficult. Just wondered how long it would take until something like a handle had to be introduced. --Bjorn