Local IR Minutes
RIPE 24 (Berlin)
Local IR working group
Chair: Mike Norris
Scribe: John Crain
There were 62 people present.
1.1 The minute-taker/Scribe was chosen.
1.2 The agenda was agreed upon.
2. RIPE 23
2.1 There were no comments on the minutes.
2.2 Actions outstanding;
21.3 To draft a recommendation on charging by local IRs
until September (D. Karrenberg, M. Norris)
23.6 To organise a Local IR workshop in conjunction with
RIPE 24 (RIPE NCC)
23.7 To include a paragraph in ripe-104++ on procedures for
the reverse delegation of partially assigned class B
networks. (RIPE NCC)
3. reports from registries
3.1 Report from regional registry RIPE NCC,
Mike Norris introduced the quarterly report. He asked if it could be
moved to the plenary as it will be presented there anyway. Nobody
3.2 There were no reports or "war stories" from other registries.
3.3 There were no reports from other regional registries.
4. IP Address Space Assignment Procedures
4.1 RIPE 104
Blasco Bonito mentioned that it was difficult to explain the reasons
for the static-dialup policies. He asked if this could be explained
more concisely in ripe-104++.
Mike Norris stressed that a major point in 104++ is that an assignment
is only valid so long as the criteria on which the assignment was
based are still valid.
He also announced that inaddr procedures (RIPE-105) have also been
incorporated into RIPE-104++(Draft version).
Mike Norris stressed that RIPE-104++ was not yet complete.
Action on NCC and Editorial Committee to complete ripe-104++ and
4.2 Supporting documentation.
Mike Norris announced the combination of RIPE-128 and -129 in the
draft document RIPE-128++. Commented that this was definitely needed
and quickly. This document had been discussed in the LIR workshop and
some problems had been noted. Especially the points concerning
end-user use of the document.
He suggested that the document be discussed for a short period and
then accepted as soon as possible.
Mike Norris asked for comments on the documents:
Yves Devillers asked when would the documents be ready for formal adoption.
The document should be ready for RIPE 25 in the third quarter of 1996.
The previous RIPE-104++ is in use and the first four sections have
been approved at RIPE 23, the rest should be approved at RIPE 25.
There were concerns about running on a "Draft document".
Daniel Karrenberg & Rob Blokzijl stated that at the moment it is the
best document we have.
Action on NCC to produce new forms in May.
5. Charging by Local Internet Registries
5.1 RIPE NCC Charging model,
This is in the RIPE NCC Report and will be left until the plenary.
5.2 Paper by Karrenberg and Norris
Mike Norris presented a draft sheet concerning charging behaviour for LIRs.
The document identifies name- and address-space as finite resources
with no intrinsic value.
Recommendations for registries are;
Registries should publish there operating procedures, details of the
services they offer, including tariffs etc and the fact that they do
not sell name- or address-space as such.
Special case registries should publish policies and be open.
This is the best way to stop monopoly complaints.
Daniel Karrenberg stated that the content of the document is already
the consensus but now needed writing down.
Blasco Bonito stated that he agrees with the content but would like to see
lobbying of the Top Level Domain administrators on this document.
The document will be passed on to the DNS-wg and posted to the TLDs
known to the RIPE NCC. It will also be posted on a TLD mailing list.
Various persons had problems with some of the wording, especially
those sections concerning, consensus and profits and the phrase "nor
be seen to generate".
There was some discussion as to if a domain-name holder can resell that
This falls outside the scope of the document and is a matter of local
rules. The document only concerns the behaviour of LIRs. The document
tries to document how a registry should behave not at the next level.
Mike Norris summed up this by saying that the document is about
charging for services and not for name- or address-space. It is meant
to be a summary of expected behaviour.
The document will be passed on to the DNS wg with idea of adoption in
Action on M. Norris to circulate paper to TLD registries.
6.1 RIPE Training courses
There have been three since RIPE-23 and three more are planned.
The training courses have been receiving positive feedback.
Recommendations have been made for separating the training into different
categories\levels. There are also new ideas for training course.
7. Input/Output with other working groups
104++ is already there.
Improving aggregation by reclamation is it worth while?
"Charging by Local Internet registries" document.
8. Global Registry Coordination
There has been an increase in phone calls from US NOC,s because of
wrong or misleading info in the Internic database.Do others have problems?
Should we ask the internic to remove all info?
There was general consensus to ask the Internic to remove the data.
The question was raised " Should the AS objects also be removed?".
Action on D. Karrenberg to raise the question with Internic.
Because some US providers insist that your AS is registered in the database
before they will peer with you, we shouldn't ask for these to be removed.
9. Reverse Domains
The procedures are now in RIPE-104++.
Anything to report?
Daniel Karrenberg stated that the situation with inaddr.arpa was "not
Carol Orange announced that the Quarterly reports were outside