From ncc at ripe.net Mon Oct 18 13:39:14 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (Nick Hyrka) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:39:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 49 Meeting Report Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20041018133513.042f04f8@mailhost.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails.] RIPE 49 MEETING REPORT Dear Colleagues, The RIPE 49 Meeting was held from 20 - 24 September 2004 at the Renaissance Hotel, Manchester, United Kingdom. There were 301 participants at the meeting. Attendees also included government representatives and representatives from AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and ICANN. HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of RIPE 49 included an update on the Number Resource Organization from Axel Pawlik, Managing Director, RIPE NCC; a discussion on the RIPE policy development process; a proposal to restructure RIPE Meetings into three days on operational/technical content followed by two days on policy related issues. The ASO held an election for a seat on the ASO Address Council. Hans Petter Holen was re-elected. Geoff Huston, APNIC, gave a report on the routing table status for IPv4 and IPv6. This presentation is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-plenary-bgp.pdf The European Operators Forum (EOF) featured presentations on peering and core network security. EOF presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/eof.html The RIPE NCC, LINX, TeleCity, Telecomplete and XChange Point Europe are thanked for the support they provided to the meeting. BT Net are thanked for the excellent provision of the meeting Internet connectivity. SUMMARY ADDRESS POLICY WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that IPv6 allocations from IANA to the RIRs had to be increased in terms of block size, and that /12 was the best allocation size to use. - RIPE Chair, Rob Blokzijl, announced that he would publish a draft of the policy development process for the RIPE region. - There was discussion on the usage of HD ratio for IPv4 and the forthcoming formal proposal regarding this. - The 200 End Users requirement for receiving an IPv6 allocation was discussed and it was agreed that a formal proposal to remove it should be sent to the community. Address Policy Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ap DATABASE WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC should implement the 'abuse-c:' attribute in the 'irt', 'person', 'role' and 'inet[6]num' object classes. - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC should implement the 'poem' object in the RIPE Database. Database Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#db TEST TRAFFIC MEASUREMENT (TTM) WORKING GROUP - It was noted that ten test boxes, throughout the RIPE region, have been added to the RIPE NCC Test Traffic Measurements matrix in 2004. Test Traffic Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#tt ANTI-SPAM WORKING GROUP - A tutorial on message headers was given by Rodney Tillotson, Working Group Chair. - The group discussed the issue of improving the RIPE Database for abuse contacts. There was a majority support for a combination of 'irt' objects with some modifications, and for changes to the default Whois behaviour. Anti-Spam Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#anti-spam IPv6 WORKING GROUP - The RIPE NCC announced that K-root has been IPv6-enabled since August 2004. - Geoff Huston, APNIC, gave an update on multihoming in IPv6. - There was discussion about IPv6 glue for root name servers. IPv6 Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ipv6 EIX WORKING GROUP - It was noted that the switching wish list is in last call and that the final review will take place at the Euro-IX meeting in Athens (October 2004). - It was noted that an Inter Providers Traffic Analyzer tool is available from the Milan Internet Exchange. EIX Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#eix ENUM WORKING GROUP - There was a presentation from the United Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on an ENUM Consultation regarding how ENUM should be operated in the UK. - There was a presentation on ENUM deployment in Sweden. ENUM Working Group Presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#enum DNS WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the DNS Working Group should take up responsibility for documenting the issues around DNS server migration. - It was noted that the DNS Working Group Chair would collect requirements for the DNS samples and statistics. - It was noted that the DNS Working Group Chair would coordinate the production of a RIPE Document based on Fernando Garcia's DNS Server Migration document. DNS Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#dns ROUTING WORKING GROUP - It was announced that the maintenance of the IRR Toolset has been transferred from the RIPE NCC to the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC). - There was discussion on securing the network through hiding the core. - There was an overview of the RIS project and discussion on the various uses of the myASn BGP monitoring tool. Routing Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#routing RIPE NCC SERVICES WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the RIPE Chair would look at the possibilities of reworking the framework of RIPE meetings, so that operational content would come at the beginning of the meeting week and policy discussions would come at the end of the week. - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC would generate statistics on the quantity of spam on the RIPE NCC servers. RIPE NCC Services Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ncc-services TUTORIALS The RIPE NCC Training Team presented the RIPE NCC IP Request Tutorial. It explained address space assignment and allocation procedures in the RIPE NCC region: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/lir-course/index.html RIPE 49 WEBCASTING AND ARCHIVES During RIPE 49, the RIPE NCC held trials in collecting feedback from participants watching the webcast. The mediums used for this were IRC and Jabber. Archives of presentations, webcasts and IRC/Jabber feedback from RIPE 49 are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/sessions-archive.html HOSTMASTER CONSULTATION CENTRE (HCC) The RIPE NCC Hostmaster Consultation Centre was open at RIPE 49, allowing RIPE NCC Members to discuss issues relating to their business directly with RIPE NCC Hostmasters. "MEET & GREET" The RIPE NCC's "Meet & Greet" was available for first-time RIPE Meeting attendees at RIPE 49. "Meet & Greet" introduces newcomers to the meetings, to key attendees from the RIPE community and to social events throughout the week. More information can be obtained by contacting . RIPE 49 REFERENCE PAGE A complete list of RIPE 49 sessions, tutorials and presentations can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/index.html RIPE 50 RIPE 50 will be held in Stockholm, Sweden from 2 - 6 May 2005. Information on RIPE 50 will soon be made available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/ If you have any questions about RIPE Meetings, please contact . -- end -- From filiz at ripe.net Mon Oct 18 16:27:44 2004 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:27:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <20041018142743.GI9943@x13.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:4A00::/23 from the IANA in October 2004. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: Regards, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC From ncc at ripe.net Thu Oct 21 17:40:02 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:40:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ICANN and the NRO sign ICANN ASO MoU Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20041021173006.027aedc8@localhost> Dear Colleagues, I am happy to inform you that on 21 October 2004, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This MoU stipulates how the NRO will fulfil the role, responsibilities, and functions of the ASO as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. The signing ceremony took place at the biannual Public Policy Meeting of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). More information on the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/archive/press-releases/aso-mou.html The full text of the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC From ncc at ripe.net Thu Oct 21 17:40:02 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:40:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [local-ir@ripe.net]ICANN and the NRO sign ICANN ASO MoU Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20041021173006.027aedc8@localhost> Dear Colleagues, I am happy to inform you that on 21 October 2004, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This MoU stipulates how the NRO will fulfil the role, responsibilities, and functions of the ASO as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. The signing ceremony took place at the biannual Public Policy Meeting of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). More information on the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/archive/press-releases/aso-mou.html The full text of the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC From ncc at ripe.net Thu Oct 21 17:40:02 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:40:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-co@ripe.net] ICANN and the NRO sign ICANN ASO MoU Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20041021173006.027aedc8@localhost> Dear Colleagues, I am happy to inform you that on 21 October 2004, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This MoU stipulates how the NRO will fulfil the role, responsibilities, and functions of the ASO as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. The signing ceremony took place at the biannual Public Policy Meeting of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). More information on the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/archive/press-releases/aso-mou.html The full text of the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC From leo at ripe.net Thu Oct 28 15:49:20 2004 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:49:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated Message-ID: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as follows: - Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other input, we have also updated the following documents: - Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. - AS Number Request Form. There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version number of the forms will not change. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Oct 28 23:15:04 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:15:04 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> Leo and all, Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that? leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update > documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as > follows: > > - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > > As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other > input, we have also updated the following documents: > > - Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment > Request Form. > - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. > - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. > - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. > - AS Number Request Form. > > There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As > the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version > number of the forms will not change. > > Kind regards, > > -- > leo vegoda > Registration Services Manager > RIPE NCC Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Oct 28 23:12:05 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:12:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Leo, On 2004-10-28, at 15.49, leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update > documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as > follows: > > - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > > As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other > input, we have also updated the following documents: Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to AFriNIC services"? Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter? - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYFgraarNKXTPFCVEQIA4QCfXDIVpqu6sgvHVPu9FRNn7Dui1BYAn1jz sUPk5iF2KJTsc1ILcFF2srJk =qc31 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Oct 28 23:12:05 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:12:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Leo, On 2004-10-28, at 15.49, leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update > documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as > follows: > > - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > > As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other > input, we have also updated the following documents: Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to AFriNIC services"? Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter? - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYFgraarNKXTPFCVEQIA4QCfXDIVpqu6sgvHVPu9FRNn7Dui1BYAn1jz sUPk5iF2KJTsc1ILcFF2srJk =qc31 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gert at space.net Thu Oct 28 23:29:24 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:29:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> Hi, (CC: list trimmed to ap-wg) On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that? AfriNIC-to-be's constituency has requested it to be that way, and it was approved in one of the previous RIPE meetings. Mainly it's to be in-line with the african countries that are currently served by ARIN, which have a /22 as minimum allocation size. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Thu Oct 28 23:32:29 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:32:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <20041028213229.GE84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > > - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > > Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to > AFriNIC services"? Those are the ones that are affected, yes. As far as I understand, these are mainly the same LIRs that *are* "operating in Africa". Multi-continental LIRs are quite likely not going to receive a minimum-sized first allocation, so the difference in wording should not make a difference in practice. > Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter? I think it doesn't matter. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 06:50:36 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:50:36 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> Gert and all, Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? Interesting method of policy determination... Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > (CC: list trimmed to ap-wg) > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that? > > AfriNIC-to-be's constituency has requested it to be that way, and it > was approved in one of the previous RIPE meetings. > > Mainly it's to be in-line with the african countries that are currently > served by ARIN, which have a /22 as minimum allocation size. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 29 07:39:39 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:39:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <20041028213229.GE84850@Space.Net> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <20041028213229.GE84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi! On 2004-10-28, at 23.32, Gert Doering wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >>> - Minimum first allocation size is /21. >>> - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. >> >> Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to >> AFriNIC services"? > > Those are the ones that are affected, yes. As far as I understand, > these > are mainly the same LIRs that *are* "operating in Africa". > > Multi-continental LIRs are quite likely not going to receive a > minimum-sized first allocation, so the difference in wording should > not make a difference in practice. > >> Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter? > > I think it doesn't matter. Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be transfered to AfriNIC. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHXoqarNKXTPFCVEQJjswCeIGjw9WCL+l8kIx7R9d8FYOxilIUAn2OA cxI+1uqNDX9rHTTuFnQolvfb =kOuZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 29 07:41:02 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:41:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <1E595714-296D-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it. > Interesting > method of policy determination.. Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHX9KarNKXTPFCVEQI/TwCgnxQ84L4OzisqnaMmfKmGjQ2GrvsAoJiG 1XV3UNYgYg7okusqfoa8vIdd =fY3J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 09:59:01 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:59:01 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <1E595714-296D-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <4181F844.A2A1EE8E@ix.netcom.com> Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed > this and agreed on it. > > > Interesting > > method of policy determination.. > > Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. And there is the curx of the problem... > > > - - kurtis - > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.1 > > iQA/AwUBQYHX9KarNKXTPFCVEQI/TwCgnxQ84L4OzisqnaMmfKmGjQ2GrvsAoJiG > 1XV3UNYgYg7okusqfoa8vIdd > =fY3J > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 29 08:21:08 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:21:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <4181F844.A2A1EE8E@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <1E595714-296D-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4181F844.A2A1EE8E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I should know better than replying to this... On 2004-10-29, at 09.59, Jeff Williams wrote: > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >> On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? >> >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed >> this and agreed on it. >> >>> Interesting >>> method of policy determination.. >> >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. > > And there is the curx of the problem... Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHhXKarNKXTPFCVEQKM4wCgwXPOXk125iEJ5C4zPoWT4lAsPGkAoPDd ovgvWo1X09V8ro0kJXIpOdVX =WQiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 10:44:39 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:44:39 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <1E595714-296D-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4181F844.A2A1EE8E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <418202F4.64A38DC8@ix.netcom.com> Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I should know better than replying to this... Well I am sorry you feel that way... > > > On 2004-10-29, at 09.59, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >> On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > >> > >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed > >> this and agreed on it. > >> > >>> Interesting > >>> method of policy determination.. > >> > >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. > > > > And there is the curx of the problem... > > Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? No of course not... > Ok fare enough. > Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to > disagree. No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and everyone else has a different policy? Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for determining "Policies" are and should be... But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will pardon the pun... >;) > > > - - kurtis - > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.1 > > iQA/AwUBQYHhXKarNKXTPFCVEQKM4wCgwXPOXk125iEJ5C4zPoWT4lAsPGkAoPDd > ovgvWo1X09V8ro0kJXIpOdVX > =WQiB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From zsako at banknet.net Fri Oct 29 09:10:28 2004 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:10:28 +0100 (MET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated Message-ID: <200410290710.i9T7ASvA004394@banknet.banknet.net> > From address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004 > From: Jeff Williams Dear Jeff, First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr). > > >>> Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > >> > > >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed > > >> this and agreed on it. > > >> > > >>> Interesting > > >>> method of policy determination.. > > >> > > >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. > > > > > > And there is the curx of the problem... > > > > Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? > > No of course not... > > > Ok fare enough. > > Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to > > disagree. > > No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than > for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is > happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". > Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and > everyone else has a different policy? > > Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for > determining "Policies" are and should be... > > But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will > pardon the pun... >;) Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in elaborating global policies. Best regards, Janos Zsako From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Oct 28 23:15:04 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:15:04 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> Leo and all, Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that? leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update > documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as > follows: > > - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > > As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other > input, we have also updated the following documents: > > - Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment > Request Form. > - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. > - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. > - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. > - AS Number Request Form. > > There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As > the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version > number of the forms will not change. > > Kind regards, > > -- > leo vegoda > Registration Services Manager > RIPE NCC Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From gert at space.net Fri Oct 29 10:15:06 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:15:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? Every region has different policies. The part of the RIPE region that is going to be AfriNIC soon has a different policy from the "core" RIPE region, yes. This was, as I said, mainly done to get all the parts of Africa "in line" with a common policy - both the LIRs served by RIPE today, as well as the LIRs served by ARIN today. > Interesting method of policy determination... *All* policy is the way it is because the LIRs affected have requested it, and achieved consensus on it. You can read up the discussion and the motivation behind the change in the mailing list and meeting archives. It's not necessary to discuss this again now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Fri Oct 29 10:19:40 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:19:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <20041028213229.GE84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20041029081940.GI84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:39:39AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >>> - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > >>> - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. [..] > > I think it doesn't matter. > > Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be > transfered to AfriNIC. Neither am I, but this policy isn't going to affect existing LIRs anyway :-) - it's a *first allocation size* policy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 13:06:49 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:06:49 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <200410290710.i9T7ASvA004394@banknet.banknet.net> Message-ID: <41822445.31781895@ix.netcom.com> Janos and all, Excuse me, I meant AfriNIC not AFNIC... Janos Zsako wrote: > > From address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004 > > From: Jeff Williams > > Dear Jeff, > > First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about > AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of > ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr). > > > > >>> Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > > >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > > >> > > > >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed > > > >> this and agreed on it. > > > >> > > > >>> Interesting > > > >>> method of policy determination.. > > > >> > > > >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. > > > > > > > > And there is the curx of the problem... > > > > > > Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? > > > > No of course not... > > > > > Ok fare enough. > > > Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to > > > disagree. > > > > No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than > > for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is > > happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". > > Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and > > everyone else has a different policy? > > > > Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for > > determining "Policies" are and should be... > > > > But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will > > pardon the pun... >;) > > Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are > regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in > elaborating global policies. > > Best regards, > Janos Zsako -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 13:17:19 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:17:19 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> Gert and all, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > Every region has different policies. I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by. I hope that this ( See above ) was not too long winded for some, or any of you on this forum. But it seemed to me that the exchanges here were not being well understood, so I tried to break it down a little more detailed... > > > The part of the RIPE region that is going to be AfriNIC soon has a > different policy from the "core" RIPE region, yes. > > This was, as I said, mainly done to get all the parts of Africa "in line" > with a common policy - both the LIRs served by RIPE today, as well as the > LIRs served by ARIN today. > > > Interesting method of policy determination... > > *All* policy is the way it is because the LIRs affected have requested > it, and achieved consensus on it. > > You can read up the discussion and the motivation behind the change in > the mailing list and meeting archives. > > It's not necessary to discuss this again now. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 13:21:16 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:21:16 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [local-ir@ripe.net]IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <04E1F41D-2926-11D9-BEFF-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <20041028213229.GE84850@Space.Net> <20041029081940.GI84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <418227AB.175E3F19@ix.netcom.com> Gert and all, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:39:39AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > >>> - Minimum first allocation size is /21. > > >>> - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. > [..] > > > I think it doesn't matter. > > > > Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be > > transfered to AfriNIC. > > Neither am I, but this policy isn't going to affect existing LIRs > anyway :-) - it's a *first allocation size* policy. Good point here except as to how such policies are determined, regardless of what those policies are... And if they are appropriate to be significantly different when considering a limited resource. As I recall, many years ago now, Jon Postel kinda botched the IPv4 address policy and practice as to allocation, in such a manner as to be too lax and good ole boyish... > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 29 11:45:49 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:45:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, On 2004-10-29, at 13.17, Jeff Williams wrote: > I understand that every region has different policies. However > isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other > RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination > practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than > it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the > same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I > and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what > are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies > a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN > in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different > minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is > therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC > also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than > is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies > determined by. I think that you should at least a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings. b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history of AfriNIC. You mail above is simply so out of the blue it's hard to reply to without giving you a full training on RIRs. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYIRUKarNKXTPFCVEQKPqwCbBOwTLNzOOi6w65hXaHmbghX5B2gAoPZU 9Eak66R0yY4KzKBpc7PdPeoZ =6nRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jon at lawrence.org.uk Fri Oct 29 11:53:58 2004 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:53:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Friday 29 October 2004 12:17, Jeff Williams wrote: > Gert and all, > > Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > > > Every region has different policies. > > I understand that every region has different policies. However > isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other > RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination > practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than > it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the > same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I > and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what > are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies > a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN > in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different > minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is > therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC > also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than > is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies > determined by. > IIRC, there are currently parts (of the to be AfriNIC) which are served by ARIN whilst other parts are served by RIPE. In the end, it's up to the AfriNIC members to decide their own policy but in the meantime the interim policy (if you like) has to be ratified by both RIPE and ARIN (correct me if I'm wrong). ARIN currently allow /22 min alloc' so it makes sense for AfriNIC to go for the lowest common denominator (ie a /22). This was discussed on this mailing list and at Ripe meetings and agreed to by the members present. As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on this :) Jon From gert at space.net Fri Oct 29 12:09:44 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:09:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <20041029100944.GL84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote: > As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that > you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting > the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy > then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the > policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior > to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on > this :) That's mostly the way it works today. Someone has an itch about the current policy, and proposes a change to the list. The list discusses the proposal. "Most of the people are in favour of it" -> the proposal is formalized, and re-circulated on the list (and discussed in the RIPE meetings). If we have "rough consensus" that this is the way to go forward, it's incorporated into the existing policy. A somewhat more formal policy process is, right now, being worked upon, and we're waiting for a formal policy proposal on the policy process to-be from Rob Blokzijl :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 14:10:06 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:10:06 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jeff, > > On 2004-10-29, at 13.17, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > I understand that every region has different policies. However > > isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other > > RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination > > practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than > > it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the > > same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I > > and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what > > are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies > > a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN > > in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different > > minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is > > therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC > > also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than > > is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies > > determined by. > > I think that you should at least > > a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and > discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail > archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings. I have done so and was from time to time an active participant in regards to the email forums. See archives. > > > b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history of > AfriNIC. Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current. > > > You mail above is simply so out of the blue it's hard to reply to > without giving you a full training on RIRs. Had the training myself. But I can understand that what I am asking may facilitate a more in depth answer. However I would have to wonder why to a certain degree, as the methods don't seem to be very comprehensive as to policy determination in respect to how and what the determination factors are, and if or when the may change, so as to than justify a change in policy for each or only some RIR's especially on a limited resource such as IPv4... What I am getting is that most if not all of the policies regarding any allocation aspect of IPv4 are more politically driven with the cloak of openness and transparency and a lack or structure for policy determination that is or should be equitable regarding IPv4 as it is a restricted resource... > > > - - kurtis - > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.1 > > iQA/AwUBQYIRUKarNKXTPFCVEQKPqwCbBOwTLNzOOi6w65hXaHmbghX5B2gAoPZU > 9Eak66R0yY4KzKBpc7PdPeoZ > =6nRu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 29 14:16:42 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:16:42 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <418234A9.D3206DFC@ix.netcom.com> Jon and all, Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to political pressure? Jon Lawrence wrote: > On Friday 29 October 2004 12:17, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Gert and all, > > > > Gert Doering wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > > > policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > > > > > Every region has different policies. > > > > I understand that every region has different policies. However > > isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other > > RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination > > practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than > > it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the > > same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I > > and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what > > are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies > > a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN > > in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different > > minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is > > therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC > > also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than > > is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies > > determined by. > > > IIRC, there are currently parts (of the to be AfriNIC) which are served by > ARIN whilst other parts are served by RIPE. > In the end, it's up to the AfriNIC members to decide their own policy but in > the meantime the interim policy (if you like) has to be ratified by both RIPE > and ARIN (correct me if I'm wrong). ARIN currently allow /22 min alloc' so it > makes sense for AfriNIC to go for the lowest common denominator (ie a /22). > This was discussed on this mailing list and at Ripe meetings and agreed to by > the members present. > > As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that > you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting > the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy > then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the > policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior > to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on > this :) > > Jon Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From ernest at afrinic.org Fri Oct 29 12:50:21 2004 From: ernest at afrinic.org (Ernest Byaruhanga) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:50:21 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <418234A9.D3206DFC@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <418234A9.D3206DFC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jeff Williams wrote: > Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the > understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having > one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having > another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE > and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. > Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in > some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to > political pressure? There was no politics involved. The community requested for this at the ISPA i-week meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa last year. Below is partly the text that was in that proposal: The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of the Internet in Africa. regards, Ernest. From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 29 12:53:59 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:53:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-10-29, at 14.10, Jeff Williams wrote: >> >> a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and >> discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail >> archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings. > > I have done so and was from time to time an active participant > in regards to the email forums. See archives. > >> >> >> b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history >> of >> AfriNIC. > > Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current. Your post clearly indicates that you do not. As has been pointed out, the LIRs that will be migrated to AfriNIC are served byt both RIPE and ARIN currently. AfriNIC is NOT "served by ARIN". It is NOT on the request of AfriNIC this proposal was accepted. Etc, etc. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYIhVqarNKXTPFCVEQKnUACfRtl4x6M084dZ/V1GCceTmiF0O+EAmwWH QhL/zgLkydDzzk6nXOsgsEMF =G4Zx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pekkas at netcore.fi Fri Oct 29 13:55:51 2004 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:55:51 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated In-Reply-To: References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Why do we keep arguing with Jeff Williams? That's an exercise in futility. Procmail is your friend, but now I see your responses.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Fri Oct 29 14:02:04 2004 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:02:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv4 policy document and request forms update In-Reply-To: References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20041029120204.GA24778@nic.fr> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:55:51PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote a message of 9 lines which said: > Why do we keep arguing with Jeff Williams? Because there is no easy way in procmail to filter out replies *to* Jeff Williams. I have: # Too much is too much :0 * ^From:.*Jeff Williams /dev/null in my .procmailrc for a long time so I missed the original troll but I get all the replies by people well intentioned but ignorant about Jeff Williams. From randy at psg.com Fri Oct 29 15:13:27 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:13:27 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <41816155.6BA156AC@ix.netcom.com> <20041028212924.GD84850@Space.Net> <4181CC1B.9CC8A4D8@ix.netcom.com> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <50D28B84-298F-11D9-AA47-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> <4182331A.1F98AA2@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <16770.16887.459812.641655@roam.psg.com> > On 2004-10-29, at 14.10, Jeff Williams wrote: >> Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current. > Your post clearly indicates that you do not. there is another explanation. jeff williams is a well-known net sociopath who makes a senseless ruckus wherever he can. i am surprised that people are feeding this slimy troll. procmail is your friend. randy From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Oct 30 07:10:01 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:10:01 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20041029100944.GL84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <41832226.EFDDA78B@ix.netcom.com> Gert and all, There is no such thing in fact as "Rough Consensus", never has been. Such a concept is ephemeral at best. If consensus is measured in an open and transparent manner for all effected, than real consensus can be legitimately claimed.. Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote: > > As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that > > you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting > > the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy > > then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the > > policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior > > to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on > > this :) > > That's mostly the way it works today. > > Someone has an itch about the current policy, and proposes a change to the > list. > > The list discusses the proposal. > > "Most of the people are in favour of it" -> the proposal is formalized, > and re-circulated on the list (and discussed in the RIPE meetings). > > If we have "rough consensus" that this is the way to go forward, it's > incorporated into the existing policy. > > A somewhat more formal policy process is, right now, being worked upon, > and we're waiting for a formal policy proposal on the policy process to-be > from Rob Blokzijl :-) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Oct 30 07:12:43 2004 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:12:43 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated References: <2B00253A-28E8-11D9-86EA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20041029081506.GG84850@Space.Net> <418226BE.2B012DC0@ix.netcom.com> <200410291053.58966.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <418234A9.D3206DFC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <418322CA.5CB78BFB@ix.netcom.com> Ernest and all, Yes I read this some time ago. It reads with some very strong politically motivated overtones to me... Ernest Byaruhanga wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the > > understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having > > one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having > > another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE > > and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. > > Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in > > some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to > > political pressure? > > There was no politics involved. The community requested for this at the > ISPA i-week meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa last year. Below is > partly the text that was in that proposal: > > The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN > region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The > number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the > other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to > expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's > ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable > in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address > space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from > upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as > NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to > customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate > IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of > the Internet in Africa. > > regards, > > Ernest. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827