From Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Tue Jun 14 17:20:11 1994 From: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net (Marten Terpstra) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 17:20:11 +0200 Subject: RIPE database update problems Message-ID: <9406141520.AA24652@rijp.ripe.net> Folks, We have found (after notification from several people) that we have some strange things going on with the database every now and again. We are currently looking into the problem and have suspended all update requested for now. The updates you send in will be queued, but not processed until we turn on the database software again. The current estimate is later tonight. whois service works as normal. Apologies for the inconvenience. -Marten From HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL Thu Jun 16 14:18:53 1994 From: HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 14:18:53 IDT Subject: Restarting the discussion Message-ID: <9406161121.AA06322@ncc.ripe.net> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries that answered: DE c IL b CZ c DK d - Eunet Denmark ES a BE a >a) government funded registry >b) university funded registry >c) country Internet consortium funded registry >d) other Based on such a small sample I don't think we can conclude anything. Anyone else care to respond to the survey? Hank From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu Jun 16 13:28:46 1994 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:28:46 +0200 Subject: Restarting the discussion Message-ID: <009800A4.19D75A40.775@cc.univie.ac.at> >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? Sure, but I would have expected that the people running the service would speak up by themselves ;-) For Austria the Last-Resort Registry is provided by Eunet Austria Ltd. I suppose the necessary is seen as a useful publicity exercise... Best regards, Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From poole at eunet.ch Thu Jun 16 13:58:45 1994 From: poole at eunet.ch (poole at eunet.ch) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:58:45 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: <9406161121.AA06322@ncc.ripe.net> from "Hank Nussbacher" at Jun 16, 94 02:18:53 pm Message-ID: <199406161158.NAA00509@eunet.ch> > > I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are > gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries > that answered: > > DE c > IL b > CZ c > DK d - Eunet Denmark > ES a > BE a > > > >a) government funded registry > >b) university funded registry > >c) country Internet consortium funded registry > >d) other > > Based on such a small sample I don't think we can conclude anything. > Anyone else care to respond to the survey? Hank, we didn't respond to your survey because I think your rather simple categories have a tendency to imply wrong and misleading things, and I simply do not have the time to start a big discussion on why the categories are wrong. But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or direct government funding. Simon From HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL Thu Jun 16 15:00:51 1994 From: HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 15:00:51 IDT Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:58:45 +0200 (MET DST) from Message-ID: <9406161210.AA06582@ncc.ripe.net> On Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:58:45 +0200 (MET DST) you said: >> >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: >> >> DE c >> IL b >> CZ c >> DK d - Eunet Denmark >> ES a >> BE a >> >> >> >a) government funded registry >> >b) university funded registry >> >c) country Internet consortium funded registry >> >d) other >> >> Based on such a small sample I don't think we can conclude anything. >> Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > >Hank, we didn't respond to your survey because I think your rather >simple categories have a tendency to imply wrong and misleading things, >and I simply do not have the time to start a big discussion on why the >categories are wrong. But you should have. > >But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities >of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal >office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries >are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. >governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or >direct government funding. I guess ES and BE should answer. > >Simon Hank From mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie Thu Jun 16 14:11:22 1994 From: mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:11:22 +0100 Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jun 94 14:18:53 +0700." <9406161121.AA06322@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9406161211.AA11526@dalkey.hea.ie> Sorry, Hank, I missed the questionaire. Here's the funding position of IP registries in Ireland (IE): A&R registry, operated by HEAnet, funded by the universities General purpose registry, operated and funded by IEunet Non-provider registry, operated and funded by IEunet Ihth. Mike From mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie Thu Jun 16 14:21:09 1994 From: mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:09 +0100 Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:28:46 +0200." <009800A4.19D75A40.775@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <9406161221.AA11563@dalkey.hea.ie> > Sure, but I would have expected that the people running the service > would speak up by themselves ;-) > > For Austria the Last-Resort Registry is provided by Eunet Austria Ltd. > I suppose the necessary is seen as a useful publicity exercise... Wilfried the first and the last sentence contradict each other. If the service is provided as a publicity exercise, then you'd expect them to let the world, or at least this list, know about it. On the other hand, maybe they're relying on you to do their promotional work for them ;-) Mike From bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk Thu Jun 16 13:21:49 1994 From: bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk (bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:49 BST Subject: Restarting the discussion Message-ID: <9406161221.AA15850@buche> > I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are > gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries > that answered: Not quite -- I explained the UK situation on this list a few weeks ago. In your characterisation, (a) -- government funded -- is probably the best approximation. However, it's the bit of 'government' that funds university wide-area networking, so maybe you count that as 'university'? I don't know, as your wording's ambiguous -- if 'university' means that a single university funds it then that's *not* the situation, but if 'university' means that the funding comes from the academic networking activities then that would be the situation. Bob Day From bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk Thu Jun 16 13:23:44 1994 From: bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk (bob at informatics.rutherford.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:23:44 BST Subject: Restarting the discussion Message-ID: <9406161223.AA15853@buche> > But just as an example, take the answers from ES and BE: are the activities > of the ES and BE registries really a line item in a budget of a federal > office of their countries? Isn't it far more the case that these registries > are run by national academic networks that are subsidised by their resp. > governments, which is -NOT- the same as a direct government activity or > direct government funding. Yep -- as I just said in my previous message on the UK situation (which I'd dispatched just as Simon's very succinct summary arrived!). Bob From erik-jan.bos at SURFnet.nl Thu Jun 16 14:42:22 1994 From: erik-jan.bos at SURFnet.nl (Erik-Jan Bos) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:42:22 +0200 Subject: Restarting the discussion Message-ID: <"survis.sur.033:16.05.94.12.42.28"@surfnet.nl> Hank, >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) __ Erik-Jan. From poole at eunet.ch Thu Jun 16 14:54:42 1994 From: poole at eunet.ch (poole at eunet.ch) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:54:42 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: <"survis.sur.033:16.05.94.12.42.28"@surfnet.nl> from "Erik-Jan Bos" at Jun 16, 94 02:42:22 pm Message-ID: <199406161254.OAA00941@eunet.ch> > > Hank, > > >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > > NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) > Stiching SURFnet or SURFnet BV? Simon From erik-jan.bos at SURFnet.nl Thu Jun 16 14:57:12 1994 From: erik-jan.bos at SURFnet.nl (Erik-Jan Bos) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:57:12 +0200 Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:54:42 +0200. Message-ID: <"survis.sur.739:16.05.94.12.57.22"@surfnet.nl> Simon, > > >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > > > > NL: funded by SURFnet (not-for-profit private company) > > Stiching SURFnet or SURFnet BV? The choices are: - Stichting SURF - SURFnet bv The correct answer is: - SURFnet bv __ Erik-Jan. From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jun 16 17:41:02 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 17:41:02 MET DST Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: <"survis.sur.033:16.05.94.12.42.28"@surfnet.nl>; from "Erik-Jan Bos" at Jun 16, 94 2:42 pm Message-ID: <9406161541.AA11097@picche.nis.garr.it> > > Hank, > > >Anyone else care to respond to the survey? > Sorry, I lost the questionaire. Was the question about the Last Resort IP registry only? If yes the answer is the following: The Last Resort italian IP registry is part of the GARR-NIS activities. GARR-NIS is partly funded by GARR which is a commitee of the Ministry for University and Scientific Research and Technology. -- ---------- ---------- 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 HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL Sun Jun 19 08:56:59 1994 From: HANK at VM.BIU.AC.IL (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 08:56:59 IDT Subject: Restarting the discussion In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:49 BST from Message-ID: <9406190600.AA15752@ncc.ripe.net> On Thu, 16 Jun 94 13:21:49 BST you said: > >> I volunteered to summerize the current status of which registries are >> gov't funded, or university funded, etc. Here are the only 6 countries >> that answered: > >Not quite -- I explained the UK situation on this list a few weeks ago. >In your characterisation, (a) -- government funded -- is probably the best >approximation. However, it's the bit of 'government' that funds university >wide-area networking, so maybe you count that as 'university'? I don't >know, as your wording's ambiguous -- if 'university' means that a >single university funds it then that's *not* the situation, but if >'university' means that the funding comes from the academic networking >activities then that would be the situation. My definition of government funding is when a specific government ministry or agency allocates money to either a university or a consortium to "do networking" and part of the budget has been specificially earmarked for handling registrations. The university of consortium might be doing the work, but the one paying the bill is the government. This is not the same as the government giving a university or universities a few million ECUs to do E3/ATM networking. > >Bob Day Hank From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 23 13:27:45 1994 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:27:45 +0200 Subject: Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations Message-ID: <9406231127.AA06629@reif.ripe.net> Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that the organisation of the administrative contact changes. In general there is no problem with such reassignments as long as the address space will be used for the purpose(s) for which it was already assigned. Also there is no problem if a similar amount of address space would have been assigned for the new purpose. As with original assignments local registries will be in charge of processing this. Once the threshold for a second opinion (13 bits == 32Cs) has been reached however it is strongly advised to consult the RIPE NCC. For reassignment of address space of 16 bits or more (class B) consulting the RIPE NCC is mandatory. The reason for this is to prevent a black market in IP addresses which circumvents the review procedures which provide fair address space allocation and which we all work very hard to provide. In my opinion this is no new policy but just a logical consequence of the agreed policies we use. Comments to the list welcome. Questions to me please. Daniel Karrenberg From huber at chx400.switch.ch Thu Jun 23 14:25:17 1994 From: huber at chx400.switch.ch (Willi Huber) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:25:17 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Reassigning of Address Space Between Organisations Message-ID: <9406231225.AA06120@ncc.ripe.net> > > Reassignment of address space between organisations or between different > autonomous parts of an organisation needs the approval of an Internet > registry. One indication that such a reassignment is happening is that > the organisation of the administrative contact changes. > No problem with me. But in my opignion this policy hasn't been clearly defined until now. One problem I see, is that smaller organizations with a class B - there are many around - will not change to class C's unless they see a benefit for some other organization they are related to. If the reassignment of address space is according to the same rules as assignment of new address space, then why not ask for new one? I doubt whether Daniels maxim 'be a good citizen - give back under used address space' works with real humans. Willi Huber From Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be Wed Jun 29 11:22:44 1994 From: Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be (Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:22:44 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: ripe-107 expiring Message-ID: <9406290922.AA23665@mahler.belnet.be> ripe-107 is expiring tomorrow. Is there an update available (soon), or do we ignore/change the expire date ?? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Biesbroeck Tel: +32(0)2-2383470 stephan at belnet.be Fax: +32(0)2-2315131 Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Jun 29 12:03:11 1994 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:03:11 +0200 Subject: ripe-107 expiring In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:22:44 MDT. <9406290922.AA23665@mahler.belnet.be> Message-ID: <9406291003.AA10125@reif.ripe.net> > Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be writes: > ripe-107 is expiring tomorrow. Is there an update available (soon), > or do we ignore/change the expire date ?? We have just finalised that. It will be out by tomorrow. Daniel From ncc at ripe.net Wed Jun 29 12:37:35 1994 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:37:35 +0200 Subject: ripe-107 expiring In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:22:44 MDT. <9406290922.AA23665@mahler.belnet.be> Message-ID: <9406291037.AA02122@belegen.ripe.net> Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be writes: * ripe-107 is expiring tomorrow. Is there an update available (soon), * or do we ignore/change the expire date ?? Anne is working very hard on the new document, which will be out soon, but probably not tomorrow. We will still accept the old form for a while... Geert Jan