Draft minutes of Local IR WG mtg

Attached are the draft minutes of the Local IR WG meeting
held at RIPE 19 on 13th September.  Many thanks to Anne Lord
for their speedy preparation; any delay is down to my tardiness
- sorry.

Comments, corrections etc by 9th October, please.

Cheers.

Mike

- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- 


		Local IR Working Group 
		 19th RIPE meeting

1.  The agenda was agreed as previously circulated and Anne Lord 
agreed to act as scribe.

2.  The minutes from the last Local IR meeting had been circulated 
shortly after the 18th RIPE meeting, and were accepted.

3.  European Registry report

3.1 RIPE NCC - Daniel Karrenberg

In the plenary session of the previous day DFK reported on the
unexpected growth of the Internet.  This has reflected itself in a
significant increase in the number of new local registries and
consequent workload in the NCC hostmaster role.  The impact is such that
the coordination task for the RIPE NCC with respect to the local IR's is
close to getting out of hand.  At some point in the near future there
should be a task on the working group to review the method of registry
operations. 

Related to this, it was noted that there is a need for some
formalisation and training for these new registries as well as offering
support to existing registries. 

Action: Mike Norris: 
At the 20th meeting to raise the training of local IR's as a topic for 
discussion.

4. RFC 1597 - experience of use
After RFC 1597 was published an opposing RFC 1627 was written.  It was
noted at a recent IAB meeting it was decided that despite this, RFC 1597
stands as published.  Informally there has been a request to write a new
document obsoleting both and clarifying the situation. 

Daniel noted that current policy of the NCC and recommendation to local
registries is to direct requests for large ammounts of address space to
read and consider using private address space.  The trade-off is either:
use private address space (with all the implications understood) or be
subject to usual strict assignment criteria which apply when requesting
large amounts of address space. 

It was noted by the group that the existence of RFC 1597 had been useful
in dealing with some large requests. 

5. Funding of and charging for local IR services
This was a continuation of e-mail discussions raised by Hank Nussbacher.
It was felt important to focus only on charging issues because of the 
disparity of local IR funding models.

In the course of the discussions it was noted that by charging you create 
a market and that the existence of one last resort IR per country could
lead to monopoly charging.

The discussion was quite varied and fairly unstructured.  Daniel suggested
that a useful step forward would be to document some of the problems associated
with charging.

Action: dfk: 
To make an inventory document of the problems associated with charging for 
address space.

6. Granularity of assignments

Previously circulated some time ago was a proposal by dfk advocating the 
use of private address space as a solution for dealing with the potential 
waste of address space incurred by very small enterprises (VSE's) not going 
to be connected to the Internet. Such organisations would be required to 
renumber once they connect to the Internet. The suggested cut-off point 
for a VSE is less than 32 hosts.

After some discussion there was consensus that this proposal should be 
revived again.

Action: dfk: 
To recirculate draft proposal on use of of private address space for VSE's 
not connecting to the Internet. Circulate proposal to the WG mailing list.

It was also noted by Sabine Dolderer that an increasingly frequent 
type of request are those received from small companies whose parent 
organisation forces them to obtain a class C address where subnetting 
could be used.

7. Reports of significant events

It has been noted there is some disparity in the assignment criteria of 
the regional registries (RIPE NCC, INTERNIC and AP-NIC) and the IANA.
A mailing list of regional registries has been created at the NCC to 
facilitate discussion. However there has been no participation from the 
INTERNIC to date. The next initiative is to organise a meeting with 
the regional registries the IANA and some representitives of the RIPE
local IR Working Group.

Action:RIPE NCC: 
To organise a meeting between regional registries, with representatives 
from the RIPE Local IR working group.

8. Reverse domains - counts and errors
Due to time constraints the action on Geert Jan to investigate reverse 
domain delegation errors was carried forward to the next meeting.

With the many new small provider emerging there was a question relating 
to who would administer reverse domains of partially delegated C blocks.
Currently the NCC administors these domains and would continue to do so 
as there is a trade-off between address space saving and laim delegations.

Reverse delegation on non-octet boundaries is currently under consideration
for the next revision of BIND.

9. Tools
9.1. assignment status
A tool has been developed by Willi Huber and Wilfried Woeber to check 
assignment status of networks. The tool was thought very useful and 
thanks were extended to the developers.

9.2. Geert Jan de Groot proposed a new attribute to the inetnum object 
"status" to describe whether a network(s) is delegated, reserved or assigned.
The proposal will be written up and circulated to the RIPE DB Working Group 
for review.

Action Geert Jan: To document new attribute "status" proposed to describe 
whether a network is delegated, reserved or assigned.

10. AOB
10.1. ripe-115 
Document expires end september. The next expiry date will be six months hence.
It was noted that there should be more emphasis on contacting a service 
provider and the last resort registry should be "last resort".

The revised document will be circulated to the list to further comments.
Action: NCC: circulate revised ripe-115 to the local-ir mailing list for 
comments.

10.2. list of service providers
There was consensus that there should be a list of service proiders in some 
agreed format and that the RIPE NCC should house the list.  The list will 
only be open to financial contributers of the RIPE NCC.

Action: dfk: To prepare specification for the format of the list. 

10.3. class A chopping
In the event of CIDR and classless addressing local registries were 
encouraged to chop up class A addresses and test whether routing equipment
could handle the classless assignment. If not they were encouraged to contact
their router manufacturers and complain.

------end of minutes--