Question on "Network Number Usage Survey"
bmanning at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 23 11:26:37 CET 1996
> > Hi Bill (and Suzane and the robot :-)! Howdy... :) > > As far as I can tell, RIPE NCC was never delegated this block. > > I think that's not *completely* true. > At least (a small) part of 192 addresses was allocated in Europe by way > of the RIPE-NCC and the Local Internet Registries. > True, and the contacts for the folks will be getting the can'ed email. This points out a minor problem with the earlier SWIP efforts: Taking the first block on your list: 192.162/16 "Various assignments" 36% whois 192.162 RIPE NCC (NETBLK-EUNET-C) EUNET-C 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11 Research Institute for Informatics (NET-RO-EARN) RO-EARN 18.104.22.168 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-1) CCDINET-C5-1 22.214.171.124 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-2) CCDINET-C5-2 126.96.36.199 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-3) CCDINET-C5-3 188.8.131.52 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-4) CCDINET-C5-4 184.108.40.206 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-5) CCDINET-C5-5 220.127.116.11 Thats seven queries. The last five could/should be consolidated into a cidr entries, like the first one. 192.167/16 "GARR NIS" (Italy) This one is even worse.... :-( ( 192.168/16 "RIPE NCC - RFC 1597" ) And this is one simply appears to be a marker 38% whois 192.168 IANA (IANA-CBLK-RESERVED) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 Netname: IANA-CBLK1 Netblock: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.0 > > was to use the authoritative delegation registry to verify use. > > Formally, I agree. > > What hits us here is the fact that we still don't have regular updates > performed between the "major" rgistries. > You might even be able to promote that idea... Interesting point. This is being hashed out with the folks doing routing registries as well. (there are a few more of them :-) At least there is a syncronization method (albeit a poor one) in that venue. Perhaps there should be a strict rule on each IR (delegation registry) only recording data that it is authoritative for? We then raise the pointy questions of authority transfer, granularity of update, validation of "guardian/maintainer", and a host of others. And life is harder when we have multiple models on support of the delegation and announcement registries. > > - If the idea of using the same delegation and routing registry > > appeals to you, you may want to consider how to return those old, > > nasty 192 delegations and use the clean blocks from the RIPE NCC. > > (Here is where PIER might be of help) > > Wearing my hat as the RIPE Database WG coordinator, > could you please point me to the proper place (and procedures) > to participate in that effort(s). > > Thanks > Wilfried. Sure. PIER is an IETF WG. See http://www.isi.edu:80/div7/pier/ for more details. --bill
[ lir-wg Archive ]