From hph at sys.sol.no Tue May 4 09:50:44 1999 From: hph at sys.sol.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:50:44 +0200 Subject: Draft Agenda for the Local IR WG at RIPE 33 Message-ID: <000201be9602$d2020000$0906e1c3@dont.no> My deepest aplogies for yet another time beeing far to late with the preparations for the meeting. The good thing is that there as been several discussions on the mailing list so there is clearly activity in this working group again. Below I have put together a "standard agenda" and added the action list from the last meeting at the end. Theese items may be promoted do agenda items if requested. RIPE 33 - 4th to 5th May 1999 Local IR Working Group D R A F T A G E N D A 1. Admin - scribe - participant list - agenda - meet the RIPE NCC hostmasters - mailinglists 2. RIPE 32 - minutes - actions 3. Reports from registries - European regional (RIPE NCC) - Statistics - APNIC - ARIN - other regionals ...Open space here .... 8. I/O with other WGs - Ipv6 Guidelines - Tagging of IP adresses and ANTI SPAM - 9. AOB ----- Action points RIPE 31 - Web interface to address forms - Comments to RIPE 185 - NCC To inform the WG on possible ARIN policy changes Action points RIPE 32 + NCC: Web interface to address forms RIPE 141 Status: released source 15/3-1999 + NCC: Ipv6 Guidelines Status: released 16/4 http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/ipv6.html - NCC: Write up suggestion on lowering AW to /19 Status: Paula posted suggestion to list on 10/2, modified proposal by Stephen Burley - Guy Davies UUNET: Start discussion on max allocation size and internal aggregation needs for large registries Status: Discussion started on 2/2-1999 - NCC: Make pretty address statistics charts - Poul-Henning: Present proposal on tagging IP addresses for anti SPAM measures Status: This has been implemented by Paul Vixi, http://maps.vix.com/dul - NCC: IP adresses to cable networks Status: Paula suggested policy change 15/2, no comments on the list - Everybody: Participate in policies for IPv6 discussion Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen LIR-WG Chair From guardian at nacamar.de Wed May 26 21:46:48 1999 From: guardian at nacamar.de (Nacamar AS Guardian) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:46:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Tagging of IP adresses / Application-Database Message-ID: Hi, at RIPE-Meeting 33, the issue on the agenda of the lir-wg of "Tagging of IP adresses and ANTI SPAM" was rejected. Partly, because this has been implemented by Paul Vixi, http://maps.vix.com/dul Further, it was felt that these tags should not be an addition to the IP-Objects, because it has a much broader range of possible applications. So, the issue was handed over to the db-wg to think about a new application-registry. Such an application-object could look like: >>> location: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] app-type: [mandatory] [single] [primary key] app-subtype: [mandatory] [single] [primary key] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ] notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] mnt-by: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] source: [mandatory] [single] [ ] <<< Location would be a range of IP-Addresses or maybe a hostname, app-type a value/keyword like "nameserver", "dialin", "mail" etc., app-subtype a more detailed code for the application, like root-nameserver, tld-nameserver, cc-nameserver, etc. Details to be discussed... Then descr, contacts etc, just the usual stuff. Technically, this shouldn't be too hard, but the main questions remain on the administrative side: - who would use this database, and for what purpose (Anti-SPAM, better route-flap-dampening ...) - who should insert/maintain the contents - how to determine if the contents are 'legal', e.g. come from the 'owner' of the mentioned ip-ranges/hosts - what to do if someone protests against some contents, or claims damages because of some contents Just to spark a bit of discussion... Best Regards, HaJo Gurt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nacamar Network Administration NACAMAR Data Communications guardian at nacamar.net Robert-Bosch-Str. 32 D-63303 Dreieich +49 6103 993 0 Voice Germany +49 6103 993 222 FAX gurt at nacamar.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Titanic 12 - Hiroshima 45 - Tschernobyl 86 - Windows 95 - Silvester 99 From lmb at teuto.net Thu May 27 11:18:24 1999 From: lmb at teuto.net (Lars Marowsky-Bree) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:18:24 +0200 Subject: Tagging of IP adresses / Application-Database In-Reply-To: ; from "Nacamar AS Guardian" on 1999-05-26T21:46:48 References: Message-ID: <19990527111824.Z25208@pointer.teuto.de> On 1999-05-26T21:46:48, Nacamar AS Guardian said: > - who would use this database, > and for what purpose > (Anti-SPAM, better route-flap-dampening ...) We already keep this kind of data for our own inetnums, which we use for firewalling rules and other purposes. Better route-flap-dampening seems impossible. You can't just exclude all nameservers (for example) from the dampening, the lists would get too long, let alone the impact on the RR server when you do the lookups... > - who should insert/maintain the contents Obviously, the only one able to maintain this data is the owner of the object. > - how to determine if the contents are 'legal', > e.g. come from the 'owner' of the mentioned ip-ranges/hosts MNT-BY should ensure that. Question is how RIPE can ensure that these new tags are indeed added at all. > - what to do if someone protests against some contents, > or claims damages because of some contents If the maintainer adds them himself, he can't protest against the contents ;-) But I wonder if the RIPE NCC members can indeed be asked to disclose all this data. I see a lot of people who might not want to do that. There is a reason why the data to evaluate a inetnum request is kept in strict confidence... Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brie -- Lars Marowsky-Brie Network Management teuto.net Netzdienste GmbH - DPN Verbund-Partner