From webmaster at ripe.net Fri Nov 1 16:50:37 2002 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:50:37 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-260 Message-ID: <200211011550.gA1FobnZ011099@birch.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-260 Title: RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003 Author: Mireille Ent, Jochem de Ruig Date: 31 October 2002 Format: PS=359378 TXT=12616 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" outlines the billing and payment procedure for members of the RIPE NCC and contains additional related information about the RIPE NCC. This document should be read in conjunction with the "RIPE NCC General Terms and Conditions" and the "RIPE NCC Clearing House Procedure". Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website. The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" is available at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing2003.html You can also access the RIPE documents via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.txt plain text version Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Webmaster From gert at space.net Mon Nov 4 12:12:46 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators In-Reply-To: <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net>; from leo@ripe.net on Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100 References: <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: [..] > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in > the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was > agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. > > An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need > to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. > > This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer relation. On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller prefixes for special cases: --------------- quote ---------------- 5.4.1. Assignment address space size Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting. RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, --------------- quote ---------------- Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, 2001:0928::/32). So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable usage, something like this: -------------- proposal ------------ c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. -------------- proposal ------------ one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid if % /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 /48s". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From andrei at ripe.net Mon Nov 4 18:01:42 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:01:42 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ERX of v4 address space proposal Message-ID: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for your review. This proposal was reviewed by the ERX-Taskforce that was set-up at the RIPE 43 meeting. Comments received were summarised and sent to both Database and LIR Working Group mailing lists. We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal no later than Wednesday, 13 November 2002. A timeline for this project will be issued along with final project description. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC ERX of v4 address space ----------------------- INTRODUCTION When ARIN began operations, it inherited classful blocks of addresses ("legacy" space) that were issued to organisations not in ARIN's region. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are co-ordinating the transfer of these records from the ARIN Database to RIPE Database or APNIC Database, as appropriate. This is based on geographic location of each resource holder. The affected records include class B networks and class C ranges, particularly those issued from 192/8. ARIN also maintains reverse delegation for all legacy address space. Once the transfer is complete, this responsibility will be distributed among the RIRs according to their respective regions. BENEFITS This will enable resource holders to maintain all their records in one database and End Users to interface with just one RIR for all database and reverse delegation matters. This effort will also help to locate address holders and recover unused or underutilised address space. IMPACT ON RESOURCE HOLDERS Entities holding legacy space to be transferred can expect the process to be largely transparent. While it will not affect network status in any way, resource holders might be required to create contact identifiers with the proper registry if they do not already exist. Queries made in WHOIS for an IP block that has been transferred to another RIR will be directed to the appropriate RIR. APPROACH The plan is to perform the transfer by /8. For each /8 the following tasks have to be performed: 1. Conflicts (contacts and description) to be resolved 2. Records and associated documentation to be transferred 3. Reverse delegation to be set up A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred. CONFLICTS The following types of conflicts have been identified: C1. Record exists in ARIN DB only. There is no exact matching (range wise) record in the RIPE DB. Proposal: to update internal documentation, create the record in the RIPE DB and protect with a unique generated mntner. C2. Range matches records in both ARIN and RIPE DBs. Meaning that contact and description may be different. Most cases indicate out of date information in one of the Databases, not real conflicts or attempts to hijack address space. What happened in most cases is that people started maintaining their allocation or assignement in the RIPE DB, especially since RIPE DB started to support the Routing Registry. Proposal: Notify conflicts and give time to reach consensus. After the deadline merge those who haven't responded, but _do_not_lock_ (keep the same mntner). C3.0 Record exists in the RIPE DB only. C3.1. One reason why such situation may exist is that this is a valid RIPE NCC allocation. Proposal: To preserve information in the RIPE DB. C3.2 Another situation is that the registration data are simply garbage. Proposal: Notify, give time for explanations and clean up in the end. PROCEDURE for a /8 1. Pre transfer 1.1 Initial dump is prepared for transfer by ARIN 1.2 Announcement is sent to ARIN's contacts 1.3 Reverese delegation domain space is cleaned up in the RIPE DB (reverse domain objects for which no delegation was provided are deleted) 2. Transfer 2.1 Final dump is prepared by ARIN 2.2 C1 group: database records are imported, documentation is updated, contacts are notified 2.3 C2 group: contacts (ARIN+RIPE) are asked to reach consensus. 2.4 C3.2 group: contacts are notified of possible deletion. 2.5 DNS is updated: domain objects are generated, zone (full or partial) is generated. 3. Conflict resolution 3.1 C2 group: non responding records are merged but _not_locked_. 3.2 C3.2 group: records without good reasons are deleted. ------- From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 4 18:08:07 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:08:07 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> Message-ID: <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> From: "Andrei Robachevsky" "A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred." Which /8s ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Robachevsky" To: ; Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: ERX of v4 address space proposal > Dear Colleagues, > > Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for > your review. This proposal was reviewed by the ERX-Taskforce that was > set-up at the RIPE 43 meeting. Comments received were summarised and > sent to both Database and LIR Working Group mailing lists. > > We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal no later than > Wednesday, 13 November 2002. A timeline for this project will be issued > along with final project description. > > Regards, > > Andrei Robachevsky > RIPE NCC > > > > ERX of v4 address space > ----------------------- > > INTRODUCTION > > When ARIN began operations, it inherited classful blocks of > addresses ("legacy" space) that were issued to organisations not > in ARIN's region. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are > co-ordinating the transfer of these records from the ARIN Database > to RIPE Database or APNIC Database, as appropriate. This is based > on geographic location of each resource holder. The affected > records include class B networks and class C ranges, particularly > those issued from 192/8. ARIN also maintains reverse delegation > for all legacy address space. Once the transfer is complete, this > responsibility will be distributed among the RIRs according to > their respective regions. > > BENEFITS > > This will enable resource holders to maintain all their records > in one database and End Users to interface with just one RIR for > all database and reverse delegation matters. This effort will also > help to locate address holders and recover unused or underutilised > address space. > > IMPACT ON RESOURCE HOLDERS > > Entities holding legacy space to be transferred can expect the > process to be largely transparent. While it will not affect network > status in any way, resource holders might be required to create > contact identifiers with the proper registry if they do not already > exist. Queries made in WHOIS for an IP block that has been > transferred to another RIR will be directed to the appropriate RIR. > > APPROACH > > The plan is to perform the transfer by /8. For each /8 the following > tasks have to be performed: > > 1. Conflicts (contacts and description) to be resolved > 2. Records and associated documentation to be transferred > 3. Reverse delegation to be set up > > A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred. > > CONFLICTS > > The following types of conflicts have been identified: > > C1. Record exists in ARIN DB only. There is no exact matching (range > wise) record in the RIPE DB. > > Proposal: to update internal documentation, create the record in the > RIPE DB and protect with a unique generated mntner. > > C2. Range matches records in both ARIN and RIPE DBs. Meaning that > contact and description may be different. Most cases indicate out > of date information in one of the Databases, not real conflicts > or attempts to hijack address space. What happened in most > cases is that people started maintaining their allocation or > assignement in the RIPE DB, especially since RIPE DB started to > support the Routing Registry. > > Proposal: Notify conflicts and give time to reach consensus. After > the deadline merge those who haven't responded, but _do_not_lock_ > (keep the same mntner). > > C3.0 Record exists in the RIPE DB only. > > C3.1. One reason why such situation may exist is that this is a valid > RIPE NCC allocation. > > Proposal: To preserve information in the RIPE DB. > > C3.2 Another situation is that the registration data are simply garbage. > > Proposal: Notify, give time for explanations and clean up in the end. > > PROCEDURE for a /8 > > 1. Pre transfer > 1.1 Initial dump is prepared for transfer by ARIN > 1.2 Announcement is sent to ARIN's contacts > 1.3 Reverese delegation domain space is cleaned up in the RIPE DB > (reverse domain objects for which no delegation was provided are > deleted) > > 2. Transfer > 2.1 Final dump is prepared by ARIN > 2.2 C1 group: database records are imported, documentation is updated, > contacts are notified > 2.3 C2 group: contacts (ARIN+RIPE) are asked to reach consensus. > 2.4 C3.2 group: contacts are notified of possible deletion. > 2.5 DNS is updated: domain objects are generated, zone (full or partial) > is generated. > > 3. Conflict resolution > 3.1 C2 group: non responding records are merged but _not_locked_. > 3.2 C3.2 group: records without good reasons are deleted. > > ------- > From webmaster at ripe.net Mon Nov 4 17:07:55 2002 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:07:55 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-262 Message-ID: <200211041607.gA4G7ta1003776@birch.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-262 Title: RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003 Author: Mireille Ent, Jochem de Ruig Date: 4 November 2002 Format: PS=358640 TXT=12366 Obsoletes: ripe-260 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document updates the billing and payment procedure for members of the RIPE NCC and contains additional related information about the RIPE NCC. This document should be read in conjunction with the "RIPE NCC General Terms and Conditions" and the "RIPE NCC Clearing House Procedure". Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/billing2003.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-262.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-262.txt plain text version Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Webmaster From crain at icann.org Tue Nov 5 00:26:03 2002 From: crain at icann.org (John Crain) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:26:03 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change Message-ID: <002401c28459$8b1414a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 *****PLEASE NOTE***** This is an important Informational Message to the internet community: November 5, 2002, the IP address for J.root-servers.net will change in the authoritative NS set for "dot". The change will be reflected in zone serial # 2002110501. The new set of servers authoritative for "dot" will be: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 198.41.0.4 H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.63.2.53 C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.33.4.12 G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.112.36.4 F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.5.5.241 B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.9.0.107 J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.58.128.30 K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 193.0.14.129 L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 198.32.64.12 M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 202.12.27.33 I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.36.148.17 E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.203.230.10 D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.8.10.90 This WILL require a change to your root hints file. The new file will be available via anonymous ftp from rs.internic.net:/domain/named.root as well as ftp.internic.net:/doamin/named.root starting 11/5/02 1700UTC (12pm EST/9am PST). Both the new and old j.root-servers.net IP space will provide answers in parallel for the foreseeable future. _________________________________________ John Crain Manager of Technical Operations ICANN/IANA crain at icann.org 1AF4 F638 4B2D 3EF2 F9BA 99E4 8D85 69A7 _________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 iQA/AwUBPccB+9Gxp5XUiliSEQIoywCg8K173qtbZM6JHupF48GSCud5AZgAn1w+ AUt6QxkOnmeroXdpIdvT/T3T =72sA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From crain at icann.org Tue Nov 5 00:49:08 2002 From: crain at icann.org (John Crain) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:49:08 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <002401c28459$8b1414a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> Message-ID: <004a01c2845c$c506f3a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> Please note that ftp.internic.net:/doamin/named.root Should read ftp.internic.net:/domain/named.root Not enough coffee today JC > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of John Crain > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:26 PM > To: RIPE DNS WG; RIPE LIR WG > Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change > > > > > *** PGP Signature Status: good > *** Signer: John Crain > *** Signed: 11/4/2002 3:25:47 PM > *** Verified: 11/4/2002 3:45:39 PM > *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > > *****PLEASE NOTE***** > This is an important Informational Message to the internet community: > > November 5, 2002, the IP address for J.root-servers.net will > change in the authoritative NS set for "dot". The change will > be reflected in zone serial # 2002110501. > > The new set of servers authoritative for "dot" will be: > A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 198.41.0.4 > H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.63.2.53 > C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.33.4.12 > G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.112.36.4 > F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.5.5.241 > B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.9.0.107 > J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.58.128.30 > K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 193.0.14.129 > L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 198.32.64.12 > M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 202.12.27.33 > I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.36.148.17 > E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 192.203.230.10 > D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 5w6d16h IN A 128.8.10.90 > > This WILL require a change to your root hints file. The new > file will be available via anonymous ftp from > rs.internic.net:/domain/named.root as well as > ftp.internic.net:/doamin/named.root starting 11/5/02 1700UTC > (12pm EST/9am PST). > > Both the new and old j.root-servers.net IP space will provide > answers in parallel for the foreseeable future. > > _________________________________________ > > John Crain > Manager of Technical Operations > ICANN/IANA > > crain at icann.org > 1AF4 F638 4B2D 3EF2 F9BA 99E4 8D85 69A7 > > _________________________________________ > > > *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Nov 5 08:33:24 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:33:24 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <004a01c2845c$c506f3a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> References: <002401c28459$8b1414a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021105083039.02f657e8@localhost.ripe.net> Also note that a hints file change is ***not required***. You can do that anytime within the next -say- 5 **years** or so. Your DNS will continue to work as long as there is at least one valid root server address in the hints file. Daniel From andrei at ripe.net Tue Nov 5 09:53:38 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:53:38 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3DC78712.8050904@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Some additional information regarding the ERX project: Project description: http://www.ripe.net/db/erx.html Project FAQ: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/erx-faq.html Presentation delivered at the RIPE 43 meeting: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-43/presentations/ripe43-db-erx Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for > your review. This proposal was reviewed by the ERX-Taskforce that was > set-up at the RIPE 43 meeting. Comments received were summarised and > sent to both Database and LIR Working Group mailing lists. > > We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal no later than > Wednesday, 13 November 2002. A timeline for this project will be issued > along with final project description. [...] From beri at eurorings.net Tue Nov 5 10:00:15 2002 From: beri at eurorings.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:00:15 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] ERX of v4 address space proposal In-Reply-To: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: >> Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for >> your review. Most legacy IPv4 address space was assigned directly by InterNIC. Should we read that all those addresses will have "PI" status? Secondly, who will provide reverse delegation and how can users of these blocks affect reverse delegation changes? I guess auto-inaddr will not work since it requires a valid RegID. Thanks! Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior IP Specialist -------- ----- KPN Eurorings B.V. - IP Engineering/NOC/Support ----- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- ----- Email: beri at eurorings.net <=> beri at EU.net ---- From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 5 14:54:37 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:54:37 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change References: <200211051343.gA5Dh1Z10519@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <0b3d01c284d2$e1bc2e40$c7b22443@repligate> Now that UltraDNS and others have been selected to run .ORG[Y]... http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html Dr. Dave Farber Bill Manning http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html Bill Manning http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ================================= How is the .ORG[Y] $6 per domain per year divided between all of the various people ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Manning" To: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change > % Also note that a hints file change is ***not required***. > % You can do that anytime within the next -say- 5 **years** or so. > % Your DNS will continue to work as long as there is at least > % one valid root server address in the hints file. > % > % Daniel > > not required -now- but it will be, eventually. > to clarify the last statement, "...at least one > reachable, valid..." > > as long as this announced change is fresh in your > minds, it might be useful to make the changes in > you live systems, then be on the lookout for > any new systems deployed in the next few years > as it will nessasary to fix them as well (since > they are already in the "channel" and will have > stale data.) > > in general, this is not a make/break situation. > there is no flag day. folks can even make the change > before the "insertion" day and still be functional. > > > -- > --bill From bmanning at ISI.EDU Tue Nov 5 14:43:01 2002 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021105083039.02f657e8@localhost.ripe.net> from Daniel Karrenberg at "Nov 5, 2 08:33:24 am" Message-ID: <200211051343.gA5Dh1Z10519@boreas.isi.edu> % Also note that a hints file change is ***not required***. % You can do that anytime within the next -say- 5 **years** or so. % Your DNS will continue to work as long as there is at least % one valid root server address in the hints file. % % Daniel not required -now- but it will be, eventually. to clarify the last statement, "...at least one reachable, valid..." as long as this announced change is fresh in your minds, it might be useful to make the changes in you live systems, then be on the lookout for any new systems deployed in the next few years as it will nessasary to fix them as well (since they are already in the "channel" and will have stale data.) in general, this is not a make/break situation. there is no flag day. folks can even make the change before the "insertion" day and still be functional. -- --bill From crain at icann.org Tue Nov 5 17:41:11 2002 From: crain at icann.org (John Crain) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:41:11 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021105083039.02f657e8@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <000701c284ea$272b7b90$6701a8c0@VAIO> This is of course true, but it doesn't mean you should wait 5 years. Not updating you hints is not going to cause you any grief but it is good practice to keep it up to date when it changes. JC > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:33 PM > To: John Crain > Cc: 'RIPE DNS WG'; 'RIPE LIR WG' > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - > root.zone change > > > Also note that a hints file change is ***not required***. > You can do that anytime within the next -say- 5 **years** or > so. Your DNS will continue to work as long as there is at > least one valid root server address in the hints file. > > Daniel > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 5 17:50:31 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:50:31 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change References: <000701c284ea$272b7b90$6701a8c0@VAIO> Message-ID: <0c2b01c284eb$7424e070$c7b22443@repligate> Modern DNS software does all that automatically. People do not have to touch it. Manual operations are expensive, prone to error and require humans to fly around in meat space explaining how things do not work. It is better to build a NetWork. Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Crain" To: "'Daniel Karrenberg'" Cc: "'RIPE DNS WG'" ; "'RIPE LIR WG'" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change This is of course true, but it doesn't mean you should wait 5 years. Not updating you hints is not going to cause you any grief but it is good practice to keep it up to date when it changes. JC > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:33 PM > To: John Crain > Cc: 'RIPE DNS WG'; 'RIPE LIR WG' > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - > root.zone change > > > Also note that a hints file change is ***not required***. > You can do that anytime within the next -say- 5 **years** or > so. Your DNS will continue to work as long as there is at > least one valid root server address in the hints file. > > Daniel > From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Nov 5 18:00:04 2002 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:00:04 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: Message from John Crain "of Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:41:11 PST." <000701c284ea$272b7b90$6701a8c0@VAIO> Message-ID: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> > This is of course true, but it doesn't mean you should wait 5 years. > > Not updating you hints is not going to cause you any grief but it is > good practice to keep it > up to date when it changes. > > JC Indeed. I always prefer to deal early with 5-year time bombs! 8-) Niall From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 5 18:13:52 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:13:52 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change References: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <0c4e01c284ee$b78c66f0$c7b22443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "John Crain" Cc: "'RIPE DNS WG'" ; "'RIPE LIR WG'" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change > > This is of course true, but it doesn't mean you should wait 5 years. > > > > Not updating you hints is not going to cause you any grief but it is > > good practice to keep it > > up to date when it changes. > > > > JC > > Indeed. I always prefer to deal early with 5-year time bombs! 8-) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:119 IE (IRELAND) Don't worry, it does not take 5 years for the new DNS software to remove your TLD. With no IN-ADDR.IE zone, it is easy to spot the ones slated to be phased out. http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=in-addr.ie&Type=255&submit=Lookup With so few "slots" open in the legacy root servers, only a limited number of TLDs can be supported. Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From andrei at ripe.net Tue Nov 5 18:39:06 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:39:06 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ERX of v4 address space proposal References: Message-ID: <3DC8023A.8030808@ripe.net> Dear Berislav, Berislav Todorovic wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > > >>>Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for >>>your review. >> > > Most legacy IPv4 address space was assigned directly by InterNIC. Should we > read that all those addresses will have "PI" status? > As those networks were allocated before the concept of PI existed, the idea is to tag them with the "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" status. > Secondly, who will provide reverse delegation and how can users of these > blocks affect reverse delegation changes? I guess auto-inaddr will not work > since it requires a valid RegID. The reverse delegations will be made according to the information recorded in the ARIN database. This will be part of the ERX and will be done free of charge. If a change for reverse delegation is required then one should either become a member (if not already) or find an LIR that will handle such requests. > > Thanks! > > Regards, > Beri > > --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior IP Specialist -------- > ----- KPN Eurorings B.V. - IP Engineering/NOC/Support ----- > ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- > ----- Email: beri at eurorings.net <=> beri at EU.net ---- > Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC From andrei at ripe.net Tue Nov 5 18:44:52 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:44:52 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> Message-ID: <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> Dear Jim Fleming, Jim Fleming wrote: > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > "A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred." > > Which /8s ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space The ipv4 address ranges that are subject to the ERX will be published by the end of the next week. Thanks for bringing this up. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > To: ; > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:01 AM > Subject: ERX of v4 address space proposal > > > >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for >>your review. This proposal was reviewed by the ERX-Taskforce that was >>set-up at the RIPE 43 meeting. Comments received were summarised and >>sent to both Database and LIR Working Group mailing lists. >> >>We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal no later than >>Wednesday, 13 November 2002. A timeline for this project will be issued >>along with final project description. >> >>Regards, >> >>Andrei Robachevsky >>RIPE NCC >> >> >> >>ERX of v4 address space >>----------------------- >> >>INTRODUCTION >> >>When ARIN began operations, it inherited classful blocks of >>addresses ("legacy" space) that were issued to organisations not >>in ARIN's region. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are >>co-ordinating the transfer of these records from the ARIN Database >>to RIPE Database or APNIC Database, as appropriate. This is based >>on geographic location of each resource holder. The affected >>records include class B networks and class C ranges, particularly >>those issued from 192/8. ARIN also maintains reverse delegation >>for all legacy address space. Once the transfer is complete, this >>responsibility will be distributed among the RIRs according to >>their respective regions. >> >>BENEFITS >> >>This will enable resource holders to maintain all their records >>in one database and End Users to interface with just one RIR for >>all database and reverse delegation matters. This effort will also >>help to locate address holders and recover unused or underutilised >>address space. >> >>IMPACT ON RESOURCE HOLDERS >> >>Entities holding legacy space to be transferred can expect the >>process to be largely transparent. While it will not affect network >>status in any way, resource holders might be required to create >>contact identifiers with the proper registry if they do not already >>exist. Queries made in WHOIS for an IP block that has been >>transferred to another RIR will be directed to the appropriate RIR. >> >>APPROACH >> >>The plan is to perform the transfer by /8. For each /8 the following >>tasks have to be performed: >> >>1. Conflicts (contacts and description) to be resolved >>2. Records and associated documentation to be transferred >>3. Reverse delegation to be set up >> >>A total of 47 /8's with 8030 records have to be transferred. >> >>CONFLICTS >> >>The following types of conflicts have been identified: >> >>C1. Record exists in ARIN DB only. There is no exact matching (range >> wise) record in the RIPE DB. >> >>Proposal: to update internal documentation, create the record in the >>RIPE DB and protect with a unique generated mntner. >> >>C2. Range matches records in both ARIN and RIPE DBs. Meaning that >> contact and description may be different. Most cases indicate out >> of date information in one of the Databases, not real conflicts >> or attempts to hijack address space. What happened in most >> cases is that people started maintaining their allocation or >> assignement in the RIPE DB, especially since RIPE DB started to >> support the Routing Registry. >> >>Proposal: Notify conflicts and give time to reach consensus. After >>the deadline merge those who haven't responded, but _do_not_lock_ >>(keep the same mntner). >> >>C3.0 Record exists in the RIPE DB only. >> >>C3.1. One reason why such situation may exist is that this is a valid >> RIPE NCC allocation. >> >>Proposal: To preserve information in the RIPE DB. >> >>C3.2 Another situation is that the registration data are simply garbage. >> >>Proposal: Notify, give time for explanations and clean up in the end. >> >>PROCEDURE for a /8 >> >>1. Pre transfer >>1.1 Initial dump is prepared for transfer by ARIN >>1.2 Announcement is sent to ARIN's contacts >>1.3 Reverese delegation domain space is cleaned up in the RIPE DB >> (reverse domain objects for which no delegation was provided are >> deleted) >> >>2. Transfer >>2.1 Final dump is prepared by ARIN >>2.2 C1 group: database records are imported, documentation is updated, >> contacts are notified >>2.3 C2 group: contacts (ARIN+RIPE) are asked to reach consensus. >>2.4 C3.2 group: contacts are notified of possible deletion. >>2.5 DNS is updated: domain objects are generated, zone (full or partial) >> is generated. >> >>3. Conflict resolution >>3.1 C2 group: non responding records are merged but _not_locked_. >>3.2 C3.2 group: records without good reasons are deleted. >> >>------- >> > -- Andrei From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 5 19:03:39 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:03:39 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change References: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> <0c4e01c284ee$b78c66f0$c7b22443@repligate> <20021105174107.GF27832@marowsky-bree.de> Message-ID: <0c6e01c284f5$abaad9f0$c7b22443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: "'RIPE DNS WG'" ; "'RIPE LIR WG'" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change > On 2002-11-05T11:13:52, > Jim Fleming said: > > > With no IN-ADDR.IE zone, it is easy to spot the ones slated to be phased > > out. > > http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=in-addr.ie&Type=255&submit=Lookup > > > > With so few "slots" open in the legacy root servers, only a limited number > > of TLDs can be supported. > > Can you translate that to English please? > "Experts" have apparently been paid (or had their arms twisted) to lie to the U.S. Government and tell them that the 32-bit legacy root servers are under attack, are over-loaded, etc. and can only handle a limited number of TLDs. That of course has been orchestrated by the lobbyists who do not want more TLDs, for obvious reasons. Since obviously it is easy to show an ASCII zone file to any clueless politician and explain how it can have a lot of entries, the "experts" turn to the operational mysteries of the DNS and claim the sky will fall if the roots are over-loaded with "traffic" resulting from new TLDs. Given that things are working, it is hard for the experts to claim that a couple hundred TLDs do not work. 256 is a good number at the moment. Of course, as the need arises to have less and less TLDs, because of the fictitious load and operational concerns, that 256 will have to be reduced, as existing TLDs are removed. The same mentality can of course be used to show that ultimately, only one operating system can be supported or only one computer language. The lobbyists will not likely stop until they have reduced the TLDs to something they can understand and control. Starting at 256 it might seem that they would work down one by one. It seems more likely with the current climate that they would go for broke and declare that only TLDs with signed contracts can remain. Certainly, signed contracts, and $1 per domain, per year, fees will help to make those operational and load concerns vanish. It looks like there are less than 32 TLDs with signed contracts and money flowing to the right people. What 32 TLDs do you think should be in the legacy root servers ? Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 5 19:25:56 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:25:56 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change References: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> <0c4e01c284ee$b78c66f0$c7b22443@repligate> <20021105174107.GF27832@marowsky-bree.de> Message-ID: <0ca601c284f8$c8aaae60$c7b22443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" > > > > With so few "slots" open in the legacy root servers, only a limited number > > of TLDs can be supported. > > Can you translate that to English please? > By the way, there are other solutions to the aging legacy 32-bit roots. One solution is to have PKs and GKs point directly to the TLD Clusters. Some top-down-mentality-thinkers can not grasp how that could work. For them, a modified version of the no-root approach is to have "the root" formed by selected "Seed TLDs", and then those TLD Clusters can be queried about the location of other TLD Clusters. You can visualize it as a ring, where in this example, COM and ONLINE are next to each other. Each TLD below, contributes a Cluster of servers. All of the servers in all of these TLDs could be viewed as "the root"... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From lmb at in-addr.de Tue Nov 5 18:41:07 2002 From: lmb at in-addr.de (Lars Marowsky-Bree) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:41:07 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <0c4e01c284ee$b78c66f0$c7b22443@repligate> References: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> <0c4e01c284ee$b78c66f0$c7b22443@repligate> Message-ID: <20021105174107.GF27832@marowsky-bree.de> On 2002-11-05T11:13:52, Jim Fleming said: > With no IN-ADDR.IE zone, it is easy to spot the ones slated to be phased > out. > http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=in-addr.ie&Type=255&submit=Lookup > > With so few "slots" open in the legacy root servers, only a limited number > of TLDs can be supported. Can you translate that to English please? Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br?e -- Principal Squirrel SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG "If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)." -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy -- Louis Pasteur From marc at schneiders.org Wed Nov 6 00:11:52 2002 From: marc at schneiders.org (Marc Schneiders) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:11:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <0H5405UME4K5VZ@Salicet.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <20021106001040.H38048-100000@voo.doo.net> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, at 17:00 [=GMT-0000], Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie wrote: > > This is of course true, but it doesn't mean you should wait 5 years. > > > > Not updating you hints is not going to cause you any grief but it is > > good practice to keep it > > up to date when it changes. > > > > JC > > Indeed. I always prefer to deal early with 5-year time bombs! 8-) Secondary root from one of the few root-servers.net that allow axfr? f (Vixie) does. One or two others too. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 6 11:02:28 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:02:28 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] What does RIPE plan to pay for /8s ? Message-ID: <10aa01c2857b$9eeb7d60$c7b22443@repligate> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46223-2002Oct31.html "There are too many holes (in the new bylaws) that are not appropriate for where we stand at this time and in our responsibility to the Internet," said Robert Blokzijl, an ICANN board member and founder of the European Internet registry, RIPE. Blokzijl joined Auerbach and Andy Mueller-Maguhn of Germany, another elected board member, in voting against the changes. ===== What does RIPE plan to pay for /8s ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From beri at eurorings.net Wed Nov 6 17:10:00 2002 From: beri at eurorings.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:10:00 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] Important Informational Message - root.zone change In-Reply-To: <004a01c2845c$c506f3a0$5d2300c0@VAIO> Message-ID: Would be also nice to have proper reverse resolving for J's new IP address (192.58.128.30). So far 198.41.0.10 still resolves to j.root-servers.net, while the new address doesn't resolve into anything: ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @depot.nstld.com 30.128.58.192.in-addr.arpa ANY ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 30.128.58.192.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 128.58.192.in-addr.arpa. 1D IN SOA DEPOT.NSTLD.COM. nstld.verisign-grs.COM. ( 2002041800 ; serial 1H ; refresh 15M ; retry 2W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum ;; Total query time: 87 msec ;; FROM: balder to SERVER: depot.nstld.com 198.41.3.109 ;; WHEN: Wed Nov 6 17:09:20 2002 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 44 rcvd: 114 From andrei at ripe.net Thu Nov 7 11:24:48 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:24:48 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Major power outage in Amsterdam Message-ID: <3DCA3F70.5010904@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Due to some explosion/fire in a power sub-system a large part of Amsterdam lost power last night around 21:30 UTC, 7 November. This influenced the AMS-IX sites at SARA and NIKHEF. This also caused an outage for some of our external services, mainly ns.ripe.net and whois.ripe.net. We apologise for the inconvenience this might have caused. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC From can at ripe.net Thu Nov 7 15:17:37 2002 From: can at ripe.net (Can Bican) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:17:37 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Webupdates Release Message-ID: <20021107141737.GB16973@x61.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Web based graphical user interface for updating the RIPE database, is released, and accessible from the following urls: For updating RIPE database: http://www.ripe.net/webupdates or https://www.ripe.net/webupdates For updating RIPE TEST database: http://www.ripe.net/webupdates-test or https://www.ripe.net/webupdates-test Webupdates provides a web based graphical user interface, with the functionality for: * Adding/deleting/editing objects, * Adding/deleting/changing the order of attributes in an object, * Providing password based authentication for updating. Since the latest prototype, the following improvements have been introduced: * A help page for using the interface has been added. * source: fields of new objects are now prefilled. * It is now possible to add new fields more easily via the '+' icon. * It is now possible to manipulate multi-line fields. * There are now links for querying the database and the copyright information. Your feedback is important to us. Please send any comments, suggestions, questions and criticisms to dbtools at ripe.net . We also provide help via e-mail through working hours. You can communicate your problems and questions about the service to ripe-dbm at ripe.net . Regards, -- Can Bican Database Software Engineer RIPE NCC From webmaster at ripe.net Fri Nov 8 13:07:55 2002 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:07:55 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-264 Message-ID: <200211081207.gA8C7tJc022002@birch.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-264 Title: Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes Author: Joao Luis Silva Damas, Leo Vegoda Date: 8 November 2002 Format: PS=10836 TXT=2169 Obsoletes: ripe-222, ripe-242, ripe-259 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- The "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" document contains the size of the minimum and default allocations made by the RIPE NCC to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) and End Users from IPv4 and IPv6 CIDR blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-264.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-264.txt plain text version From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 8 19:13:09 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:13:09 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Fw: 3:127 EU Message-ID: <00c301c28752$7e6ac630$5dbe2443@repligate> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:51 AM Subject: 3:127 EU > If the number of "slots" in the 32-bit legacy root servers is going to be so limited, because of bogus claims > about load and attacks and stability and security, then, will all of the TLDs such as DE and FR end up > under .EU or under .INT ? or under .EU.INT ? Will all of the people have to re-register ? > > http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm > http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/index_en.htm > .ES.EU > .DA.EU > .DE.EU > .EL.EU > .EN.EU > .FR.EU > .IT.EU > .NL.EU > .PT.EU > .FI.EU > .SV.EU > === > > > Jim Fleming > 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... > 3:127 EU > COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > > From ripe-dbm at ripe.net Tue Nov 12 11:27:56 2002 From: ripe-dbm at ripe.net (RIPE Database Administration) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:27:56 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Maintenance work on RIPE Whois Server 13.11.2002 Message-ID: <200211121027.gACARuJc010299@birch.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate messages] Dear Colleagues, Tomorrow, 13 November 2002 Wednesday, we plan maintenance work for the whois server. As part of the maintenance work the server software will be upgraded to improve server query performance. We plan to start around 06:30 UTC and finish the work till 10:30 UTC. During this maintenance period, - mail updates will be queued and automatically processed after the maintenance work. - webupdates and syncupdates will not be possible. - queries will be answered by our secondary server. We apologise for any inconvenience. Please contact for any questions/ comments. Best Regards, Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 12 22:50:49 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:50:49 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Fw: Project to Define a cc-IANA...for "substantial ccTLDs" Message-ID: <0bb001c28a95$909e5150$5dbe2443@repligate> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Project to Define a cc-IANA...for "substantial ccTLDs" > http://www.wwtld.org/~shanghai/cc-IANA.html > Project to Define a cc-IANA > ==== > > "Critically, the success of this project will be measured by the number of ?substantial? ccTLDs" > ... > > "The US Department of Commerce, from its side, needs to have these same assurances and the firm acceptance of the other respective > governments that they should accept these entries as authoritative." > > === > > http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/data/source_add_pre_as.txt > > US 704056771 (50.357%) 65945 (58.259%) 5899 (53.317%) > AU 14416063 ( 1.031%) 5894 ( 5.207%) 213 ( 1.925%) > CA 26436124 ( 1.891%) 5313 ( 4.694%) 239 ( 2.160%) > ZA 6533529 ( 0.467%) 2703 ( 2.388%) 35 ( 0.316%) > ?? 306555022 (21.926%) 2547 ( 2.250%) 276 ( 2.495%) <<<<<<<< OZ or NZ ? > DE 51874361 ( 3.710%) 2410 ( 2.129%) 402 ( 3.633%) > JP 36287488 ( 2.595%) 1959 ( 1.731%) 215 ( 1.943%) > KR 18529780 ( 1.325%) 1859 ( 1.642%) 309 ( 2.793%) > UK 40459542 ( 2.894%) 1691 ( 1.494%) 261 ( 2.359%) > SE 9381784 ( 0.671%) 1162 ( 1.027%) 66 ( 0.597%) > FR 28506472 ( 2.039%) 1137 ( 1.004%) 200 ( 1.808%) > HK 2799696 ( 0.200%) 1086 ( 0.959%) 140 ( 1.265%) > MX 4643076 ( 0.332%) 1062 ( 0.938%) 75 ( 0.678%) > ===== > > US...AU...CA...ZA...OZ or NZ...DE...JP...KR...UK...SE...FR...HK...MX > > Will this be capped at 16 ?...if the total TLDs allowed are 64 ?...25% to the so-called ccTLDs ? > > 25% to gTLDs > > 25% to sTLDs (Staff "sponsored" TLDs) > > 25% to iTLDs (I* society) > > > Jim Fleming > 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... > COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > > > Note..... > > OZ came from the old style two-drawer file cabinets with the "top" being A-M and the "bottom" being O-Z > > If the "top" is going to be A-M, then the "bottom" will be N-Z, as in NZ. > > So, we have TLDs and BLDs, Top Level Domains and Bottom Level Domains. > Correction....OZ came from the old style two-drawer file cabinets with the "top" being A-N and the "bottom" being O-Z I know .AN wants to be the "top" and .OZ wants to be the "bottom". http://www.iana.org/root-whois/an.htm Will that be decided in Amsterdam ? AN and OZ or AM and NZ From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Nov 12 23:52:07 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:52:07 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ERX of v4 address space proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93769671.1037145127@[192.168.0.128]> --On 5. november 2002 10:00 +0100 Berislav Todorovic wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > >>> Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for >>> your review. > > Most legacy IPv4 address space was assigned directly by InterNIC. Should > we read that all those addresses will have "PI" status? > > Secondly, who will provide reverse delegation and how can users of these > blocks affect reverse delegation changes? I guess auto-inaddr will not > work since it requires a valid RegID. I see three possibilities: 1) If you are already a LIR, this is no problem 2) If you are not an LIR, you probably receive connectivity from someone who are, and they should be able to help you out on this. 3) You may choose to become an LIR -hph From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed Nov 13 00:25:31 2002 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:25:31 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ERX of v4 address space proposal Message-ID: <00A16E33.A3AAEC4A.2@cc.univie.ac.at> --On 5. november 2002 10:00 +0100 Berislav Todorovic wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > >>> Please find attached the proposal for the ERX of IPv4 address space for >>> your review. > > Most legacy IPv4 address space was assigned directly by InterNIC. Should > we read that all those addresses will have "PI" status? Given the fact that those address blocks were distributed before the RIR and NIR / LIR structure was devised, those blocks are _administratively_ PI, or maybe "unspecified" which I consider equivalent (much like the very early LIR blocks :-) Technically, and wirth regard to services rendered by LIRs and RIRs to the holders of those blocks, I'd venture to guess that they should be offered a chance to "opt-in" to an existing LIR or ISP environment. > Secondly, who will provide reverse delegation and how can users of these > blocks affect reverse delegation changes? I guess auto-inaddr will not > work since it requires a valid RegID. Actually this is one of the aspects that I would have liked to tackle in the ERX-TF, unfortunately it looks like I might be too late to have those ideas discussed and considered, due to overload on my end for a while. One of the things we should have learned from the ASN relocation is that those parties are not in touch with the most recent administartive procedures imposed by the RIR (and why should they?), and they simply get mixed up when they suddenly receive messages from the NCC :-( Wilfried. From sabrina at ripe.net Thu Nov 14 17:39:41 2002 From: sabrina at ripe.net (Sabrina Wilmot) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:39:41 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators In-Reply-To: <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> References: <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20021114173941.31473b65.sabrina@ripe.net> Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the current policy's criteria. If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a starting point. I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list. Kind regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina at ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > [..] > > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > > > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > > > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > > > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > > > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > > > The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in > > the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was > > agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. > > > > An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need > > to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. > > > > > > This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) > > The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", > which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer > relation. > > On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller > prefixes for special cases: > > --------------- quote ---------------- > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing > guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: > > * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers > > * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by > design > > * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device > is connecting. > > RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP > actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the > detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, > --------------- quote ---------------- > > Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network > operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. > > On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, > and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network > is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller > ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. > > I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be > able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also > see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, > 2001:0928::/32). > > So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy > document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable > usage, something like this: > > -------------- proposal ------------ > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it > will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that > connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be > defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. > -------------- proposal ------------ > > one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid > if % /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 /48s". > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > From hank at att.net.il Thu Nov 14 18:43:05 2002 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:43:05 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators In-Reply-To: <20021114173941.31473b65.sabrina@ripe.net> References: <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021114193753.04f3dd68@max.att.net.il> At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote: 5.1.1 is a problem for me. To quote: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years. I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming? Thanks, Hank >Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure >requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 >allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the >current policy's criteria. > >If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community >to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would >apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a >starting point. > >I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list. > >Kind regards, > >Sabrina Wilmot >-- > >o------------------------------------------o >| Sabrina Wilmot sabrina at ripe.net | >| Registration Services Operations Manager | >| | >| RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | >| www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | >o------------------------------------------o > > >On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 >Gert Doering wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > > [..] > > > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > > > > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > > > > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > > > > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > > > > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > > > > > The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in > > > the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was > > > agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. > > > > > > An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need > > > to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. > > > > > > > > > > This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) > > > > The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", > > which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer > > relation. > > > > On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller > > prefixes for special cases: > > > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > > > Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing > > guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: > > > > * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers > > > > * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by > > design > > > > * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device > > is connecting. > > > > RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP > > actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the > > detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > > > Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network > > operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. > > > > On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, > > and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network > > is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller > > ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. > > > > I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be > > able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also > > see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, > > 2001:0928::/32). > > > > So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy > > document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable > > usage, something like this: > > > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it > > will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that > > connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > > organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be > > defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > > > one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid > > if % /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 > /48s". > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) > > > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Nov 15 10:39:23 2002 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:39:23 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021114193753.04f3dd68@max.att.net.il> References: <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20021114193753.04f3dd68@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20021115093923.GB22166@starling.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:43:05PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote: > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years. > > I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed > to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for > multihoming? The "rules" are clearly shot as far as NRENs go, but having said that the bulk of the European NRENs now have SubTLA space, so one deduces that RIPE is sympathetic to their situation when making assignments. After all, there are only so many - some 30 or so - NRENs to give SubTLAs to. Regarding second prefixes for multihoming, there is a GEANT testbed for NRENs to which ~10 NRENs are attached at the moment. We are also reusing AS8933 and the GTPv6 6bone prefix to offer /34's to interested NRENs (we are also using this for things such as IPv6 Multicast). A Hitachi GR2000 in the UK and a Juniper M5 in Paris are being used for this. Expect a new push in work there after IETF week. Tim From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 15 15:08:01 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:08:01 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] 5:233 IL...How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ? References: <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> <20021104121246.A94537@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20021114193753.04f3dd68@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <13b801c28cb0$6932b9e0$5dbe2443@repligate> From: "Hank Nussbacher" How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ? ====== IN-ADDR.IL ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 5:232 EASY 5:233 IL (ISRAEL) 5:234 KE (KENYA) 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Nussbacher" To: "Sabrina Wilmot" ; ; Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators > At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote: > > 5.1.1 is a problem for me. To quote: > a) be an LIR; > b) not be an end site; > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated > address allocation; and > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years. > > I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed > to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming? > > Thanks, > Hank > > > >Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure > >requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 > >allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the > >current policy's criteria. > > > >If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community > >to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would > >apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a > >starting point. > > > >I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Sabrina Wilmot > >-- > > > >o------------------------------------------o > >| Sabrina Wilmot sabrina at ripe.net | > >| Registration Services Operations Manager | > >| | > >| RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | > >| www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | > >o------------------------------------------o > > > > > >On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 > >Gert Doering wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > > > > > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > > > > > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > > > > > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > > > > > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > > > > > > > The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in > > > > the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was > > > > agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. > > > > > > > > An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need > > > > to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) > > > > > > The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", > > > which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer > > > relation. > > > > > > On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller > > > prefixes for special cases: > > > > > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > > > > > Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing > > > guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: > > > > > > * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers > > > > > > * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by > > > design > > > > > > * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device > > > is connecting. > > > > > > RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP > > > actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the > > > detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, > > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > > > > > Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network > > > operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. > > > > > > On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, > > > and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network > > > is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller > > > ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. > > > > > > I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be > > > able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also > > > see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, > > > 2001:0928::/32). > > > > > > So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy > > > document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable > > > usage, something like this: > > > > > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it > > > will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that > > > connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and > > > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > > > organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be > > > defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. > > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > > > > > one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid > > > if % /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 > > /48s". > > > > > > Gert Doering > > > -- NetMaster > > > -- > > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) > > > > > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > > > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 15 16:09:03 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:09:03 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] 0:0 ARPA.AE and IN-ADDR.ARPA.AE Message-ID: <140c01c28cb8$ef585590$5dbe2443@repligate> It is still not clear who operates 0:0 .ARPA. ARIN, RIPE and APNIC appear to want to rotate that. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space TLDs that begin with the letters A-E can be managed under .AE to balance the server load That would result in ARPA.AE and IN-ADDR.ARPA.AE > > > http://www.uaenic.ae > > > AE > > > http://www.dot.fm > > > FM > > > http://www.cenpac.net.nr/dns/index.html > > > NR > > > http://www.africaonline.co.sz/domreg/ > > > SZ > > > ===== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... AE...FM...NR...SZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From ncc at ripe.net Tue Nov 19 16:44:15 2002 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:44:15 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Routing Workshop - free places available Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021119164114.02931c80@mailhost.ripe.net> CALL FOR APPLICATIONS Routing Workshop, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3-7 February 2003 Dear Colleagues, Cisco Systems will provide a Routing Workshop for RIPE NCC staff on 3-7 February 2003 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. This is a call for applications for 12 places still available in the workshop. This workshop will be provided free of charge and includes lunches. PLEASE NOTE: Travel and accommodation are not provided or reimbursed. Who should Attend: The target audience for this course is persons in the ISP community with a basic familiarity of Cisco Systems equipment. This is a technical workshop and most suitable for those persons who are now or will soon be building or operating a wide area TCP/IP base Internet Service Provider (ISP) network or Internet eXchange Point (IXP) with international and/or multi-provider connectivity. Prerequisites: Cisco IOS fundamentals; user level UNIX and possibly some system administration and; some use of network design, preferably TCP/IP based. * Preference for this course will be given to those individuals from the following regions (i.e. Central Europe, Central Asia, Africa and The Middle East) Cisco Systems will select 12 participants to attend the tutorial based on the information provided in the application form enclosed below. The Workshop scope, location and important dates are also enclosed. Regards, Paul Rendek RIPE NCC WORKSHOP SCOPE: --------------- - Techniques for design, set-up, and operation of a metropolitan, regional or national ISP backbone network. This includes advanced OSPF, BGP4 and policy based routing. - IOS Essentials every ISP should be doing. The hidden secrets that all key NSPs have been using for years but not telling anyone (ie: competitive advantage. - Techniques for multiple connections to the Internet (multihoming), including connections to IXPs, NSP and transoceanic Internet links. - Techniques for the design, set-up and operation of a metropolitan, regional or national IXPs - Techniques to achieve optimal performance and configuration from a Cisco backbone router. This includes routing scalability, network design and configuration techniques. - Examples from a case study from successful ISPs who are making use of many of the workshop techniques. COURSE LOCATION: --------------- The course will take place at the RIPE NCC offices in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The instructor for the Workshop will be Philip Smith. IMPORTANT DATES: --------------- * The deadline for application submissions: 3 December 2002 * Acceptance notification to selected candidates: 11 December 2002 * Routing Workshop: 3-7 February 2003 ====== ROUTING WORKSHOP - APPLICATION FORM * Please submit your application form by email to: with the following text as the subject: Routing Workshop First Name: Last Name: Nationality: Contact Information: - postal address: - Tel/Fax number: - email address: CV detailing ISP experience [max 200 words]: ====== From andrei at ripe.net Wed Nov 20 14:54:13 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:54:13 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, You may find a list of networks (/8's) containing allocations that will be transferred by the ERX project at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ A detailed list of which networks will be transferred, and to which RIR, will be posted before each /8 is transferred. A full schedule for each network will also be published for each /8. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Nov 20 15:06:32 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:06:32 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> 192.0.0.0/8 ? The swamp is coming to RIPE or which poor RIR ? Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Robachevsky" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > Dear Colleagues, > > You may find a list of networks (/8's) containing allocations that will > be transferred by the ERX project at the following URL: > http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ > > A detailed list of which networks will be transferred, and to which RIR, > will be posted before each /8 is transferred. A full schedule for each > network will also be published for each /8. > > Regards, > > Andrei Robachevsky > CTO, RIPE NCC > > From andrei at ripe.net Wed Nov 20 15:40:05 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:40:05 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <3DDB9EC5.5040504@ripe.net> Peter Galbavy wrote: > 192.0.0.0/8 ? > > The swamp is coming to RIPE or which poor RIR ? Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. 192/8 will be processed as last and sweet piece, and statistics will be updated. > > Peter Regards, Andrei > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:54 PM > Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > > > >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>You may find a list of networks (/8's) containing allocations that will >>be transferred by the ERX project at the following URL: >>http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ >> >>A detailed list of which networks will be transferred, and to which RIR, >>will be posted before each /8 is transferred. A full schedule for each >>network will also be published for each /8. >> >>Regards, >> >>Andrei Robachevsky >>CTO, RIPE NCC >> >> > From he at uninett.no Wed Nov 20 15:42:52 2002 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal In-Reply-To: <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021120.094252.27020875.he@uninett.no> > 192.0.0.0/8? > > The swamp is coming to RIPE or which poor RIR? I beleive this list of address spaces are just the ones which contain assignments which will be moved, not that the responsibility for maintaining all the data for all the assignments in each of the blocks is going to be moved to RIPE. Regards, - H?vard From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 20 21:04:38 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:04:38 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] What /8s have been transferred to LACNIC ? Message-ID: <053b01c290d0$0e785680$b8bf2443@repligate> What /8s have been transferred to LACNIC ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space How much did LACNIC pay for them ? http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/meeting/list.cgi?lang=en Andrew McLaughlin ICANN US IVAN MOURA CAMPOS ICANN BR IVAN MOURA CAMPOS ICANN BR John Crain ICANN US Raymond Plzak ARIN US Paul Wilson APNIC AU Leslie Nobile ARIN US ===== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...NET...COM...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 20 16:18:10 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:18:10 -0600 Subject: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DDB9EC5.5040504@ripe.net> Message-ID: <020d01c290a8$0d5d02a0$b8bf2443@repligate> From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 > stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. That of course only applies to the 32-bit AM(0) address space with TOS=0x00,0x*0,0x0*. The FM(1) address space can be allocated based more on quality, as opposed to quantity or unwillingness to pay market value for DNS services and Internet resources. Where do all of the other /8s end up ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Have the RIRs taken all of them over from ICANN ? Note, LACNIC is less than 30 days old, and it will get 92 /8s ? *each* valued at $1 to $2 billion dollars ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Robachevsky" To: "Peter Galbavy" Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:40 AM Subject: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > Peter Galbavy wrote: > > 192.0.0.0/8 ? > > > > The swamp is coming to RIPE or which poor RIR ? > > Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 > stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. > > 192/8 will be processed as last and sweet piece, and statistics will be > updated. > > > > > Peter > > Regards, > > Andrei > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > > To: ; > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:54 PM > > Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > > > > > > > >>Dear Colleagues, > >> > >>You may find a list of networks (/8's) containing allocations that will > >>be transferred by the ERX project at the following URL: > >>http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ > >> > >>A detailed list of which networks will be transferred, and to which RIR, > >>will be posted before each /8 is transferred. A full schedule for each > >>network will also be published for each /8. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Andrei Robachevsky > >>CTO, RIPE NCC > >> > >> > > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Nov 21 20:04:22 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:04:22 -0600 Subject: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal References: <3DC6A7F6.10304@ripe.net> <08d801c28424$bf29c530$c7b22443@repligate> <3DC80394.1070004@ripe.net> <3DDB9405.40001@ripe.net> <014601c2909e$080960a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DDB9EC5.5040504@ripe.net> <020d01c290a8$0d5d02a0$b8bf2443@repligate> <018301c2918f$c461cd90$0ef2a8c0@amalthea> Message-ID: <09ca01c29190$cd924ab0$b8bf2443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kandra Nyg?rds" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > From: "Jim Fleming" > > > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" > > > Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 > > > stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. > > > > Note, LACNIC is less than 30 days old, and it will get 92 /8s ? *each* > valued at $1 to $2 billion dollars ? > > No kidding! Not to mention the 9072 /8s that ARIN keeps, and the 3176 /8s > that goes to RIPE. Jim, quick! Buy ARIN stock before it's too late! Or even > better, send your money to me and I'll buy the stock for you! > > When you add the 11 additional bits of addressing to the existing IPv4 header, you get 2,048 32-bit address spaces in both the AM and FM Internets. That is a lot of /8s, but ARIN and RIPE only deal with TOS=0,0x0*,0x*0. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] === Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From martinandersen at passagen.se Fri Nov 22 00:52:26 2002 From: martinandersen at passagen.se (martinandersen at passagen.se) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:52:26 -2300 Subject: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal In-Reply-To: <020d01c290a8$0d5d02a0$b8bf2443@repligate> Message-ID: <3DA55D4300010FE8@webmail-se1.sol.no1.asap-asp.net> Jim, Why don't you and Joe Baptista and Jeff Williams get off our mailing lists, create your own little list and spam each other with junk? (Unless you're the same person - noone has ever seen any of you "mystery men", isn't that right?) The rest of us are actually interested in useful community participation. Thanks RIRs for a good job by the way. Martin Andersen >-- Original Message -- >From: "Jim Fleming" >To: "Peter Galbavy" , > "Andrei Robachevsky" >Cc: , , > "Richard J. Sexton" , > "Richard Henderson" , > , , , > , , > "Joop Teernstra" , > "Joey Borda **star*walker**" , > "Joe Baptista" , "Joanna Lane" , > , "Jkhan" , , > , , > , > "Elisabeth Porteneuve" , > "Bruce Young" , > "Ben Edelman" , , > "@quasar Internet Solutions, Inc." , > "Stephen Waters" , , > , , , > , , , > , , , > , , > , , > , , > "Milton Mueller" >Subject: Re: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:18:10 -0600 > > >From: "Andrei Robachevsky" >> Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 > >> stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. > >That of course only applies to the 32-bit AM(0) address space with TOS=0x00,0x*0,0x0*. >The FM(1) address space can be allocated based more on quality, as opposed >to quantity or >unwillingness to pay market value for DNS services and Internet resources. > >Where do all of the other /8s end up ? >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space >Have the RIRs taken all of them over from ICANN ? > >Note, LACNIC is less than 30 days old, and it will get 92 /8s ? *each* valued >at $1 to $2 billion dollars ? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Andrei Robachevsky" >To: "Peter Galbavy" >Cc: ; >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:40 AM >Subject: [db-wg] Re: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal > > >> Peter Galbavy wrote: >> > 192.0.0.0/8 ? >> > >> > The swamp is coming to RIPE or which poor RIR ? >> >> Our current data shows that around 753 networks will go to APNIC, 9072 > >> stay with ARIN, 92 will go to LACNIC and 3176 to RIPE NCC. >> >> 192/8 will be processed as last and sweet piece, and statistics will be > >> updated. >> >> > >> > Peter >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrei >> >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Andrei Robachevsky" >> > To: ; >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:54 PM >> > Subject: [lir-wg] Re: ERX of v4 address space proposal >> > >> > >> > >> >>Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >>You may find a list of networks (/8's) containing allocations that will > >> >>be transferred by the ERX project at the following URL: >> >>http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ >> >> >> >>A detailed list of which networks will be transferred, and to which RIR, > >> >>will be posted before each /8 is transferred. A full schedule for each > >> >>network will also be published for each /8. >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >> >> >>Andrei Robachevsky >> >>CTO, RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________________ S?k f?retag p? Gula Sidorna http://www.gulasidorna.se From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 16:01:34 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:01:34 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <200211011550.gA1FobnZ011099@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <02d201c29493$8c3f7eb0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Sorry, maybe I do not participate quite as much as I would like, but the fee for a SMALL registry has increased by more that 50% in a year. I just got the invoice and had to back track. My budgets are somewhat unbalanced now... That is somewhat high a jump isn't it ? What is the average EU inflation figure ? 4% ? Can someone from the RIPE management comment on how much money is spent on non-core (IP management, co-ordination and associated registry activities) ? I cannot make it to RIPE meetings but I would like to ask someone to raise this issue formally at the next event. rgds, -- Peter Galbavy Knowtion Ltd. ----- Original Message ----- From: "RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service" To: "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:50 PM Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-260 > [Apologies for duplicate mails] > > New RIPE Document Announcement > -------------------------------------- > A new document is available from the RIPE document store. > > Ref: ripe-260 > Title: RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003 > Author: Mireille Ent, Jochem de Ruig > Date: 31 October 2002 > Format: PS=359378 TXT=12616 > Obsoletes: > Obsoleted by: > Updates: > Updated by: > > Short content description ------------------------- > > The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" outlines the > billing and payment procedure for members of the RIPE NCC and contains > additional related information about the RIPE NCC. This document > should be read in conjunction with the "RIPE NCC General Terms and > Conditions" and the "RIPE NCC Clearing House Procedure". > > > Accessing the RIPE document store > --------------------------------- > > You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website. > The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" is available at > the following URL: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing2003.html > > You can also access the RIPE documents via anonymous FTP to > ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. > > The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.ps PostScript version > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.txt plain text version > > > Kind Regards, > > Jeroen Bet > RIPE NCC Webmaster > From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 16:27:14 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:27:14 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: Message-ID: <02ed01c29497$22172570$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > I am equally concerned of the rise in fees (although I have been aware it > was coming) which I don't see as bringing me anything more value. However, > other than mentioning it on the survey that recently took place, I haven't > had the time to get involved in more detail with RIPE. It looks like I > will have to in future. For those of us (I am sure it is not just me) supporting legacy networks, is there any value in pursueing 'merging' LIRs, or does this process have a detrimental effect on allocations/assignments already made ? Again, I have not had the time to keep up with the latest documents re merges and acquisitions and RIPE. This may be a cost saving for those who are paying almost completely out of our own pockets. Peter From andrius at andrius.org Mon Nov 25 16:31:46 2002 From: andrius at andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:31:46 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <02ed01c29497$22172570$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <02ed01c29497$22172570$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021125153146.GB3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership status. For every IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, and oth.? Andrius On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > I am equally concerned of the rise in fees (although I have been aware it > > was coming) which I don't see as bringing me anything more value. However, > > other than mentioning it on the survey that recently took place, I haven't > > had the time to get involved in more detail with RIPE. It looks like I > > will have to in future. > > For those of us (I am sure it is not just me) supporting legacy networks, is > there any value in pursueing 'merging' LIRs, or does this process have a > detrimental effect on allocations/assignments already made ? Again, I have > not had the time to keep up with the latest documents re merges and > acquisitions and RIPE. > > This may be a cost saving for those who are paying almost completely out of > our own pockets. > > Peter > From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Mon Nov 25 16:37:39 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:37:39 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Dear Peter, Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services. The RIPE NCC's Activity Plan for 2003 was published for comment to the community on 17 September this year. The plan was then presented by the Executive Board of the RIPE NCC for membership approval at the annual General Meeting (GM) of the RIPE NCC. This year's GM was held 29 October 2002. At the meeting, the membership voted unanimously to approve the fee structure, thereby increasing their fees. The RIPE NCC, operating as a not-for-profit organisation, budgets on a cost-recovery basis. This implies that we make an expense proposal and a matching charging scheme. Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year. Membership decisions taken over the course of the years have made it possible that we can rely on our reserves to cover the cost of operations this year. To ensure that the prime goal of our membership is met, namely to run RIPE NCC operations stably, we have proposed the current figures for the year 2003. The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members. More information is available from the following RIPE Documents: - "Highlights from the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2002" located at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/highlights.html - "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at: http://www/ripe/docs/ap2003.html - "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at: http://www/ripe/docs/billing2003.html kind regards, Axel Pawlik From ripe-lir-wg at ncuk.net Mon Nov 25 16:42:38 2002 From: ripe-lir-wg at ncuk.net (Sebastien Lahtinen) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:42:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021125153146.GB3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Andrius Kasparavicius wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > > I am equally concerned of the rise in fees (although I have been > > > aware it was coming) which I don't see as bringing me anything more > > > value. However, other than mentioning it on the survey that recently > > > took place, I haven't had the time to get involved in more detail > > > with RIPE. It looks like I will have to in future. > > > > For those of us (I am sure it is not just me) supporting legacy > > networks, is there any value in pursueing 'merging' LIRs, or does this > > process have a detrimental effect on allocations/assignments already > > made ? Again, I have not had the time to keep up with the latest > > documents re merges and acquisitions and RIPE. You can't have a PA allocation unless you're an LIR as far as I recall (I thought you could but I think someone mentioned you could only get a PI assignment rather than a PA allocation) so it would be detrimental. The idea has some merit (and would pay for internal training for staff perhaps) but from our point of view, we would prefer to be RIPE members outselves. > Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership status. > For every IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, > and oth.? This is in effect what SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE is about I guess.. I'm not sure however that we will benefit from the increased level of fees, but I would have to look at it more closely. Sebastien. --- NetConnex Broadband Ltd. tel. +44 870 745 4830 fax. +44 870 745 4831 Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom. From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Mon Nov 25 16:52:52 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:52:52 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125164947.0212ff50@localhost> > >- "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at: > >http://www/ripe/docs/ap2003.html ... should have been http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html >- "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at: > >http://www/ripe/docs/billing2003.html ... should have been http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing2003.html apologies, Axel From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 16:56:57 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:56:57 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Fw: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting." Message-ID: <138b01c2949b$4889d730$b8bf2443@repligate> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: Re: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting." > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Cohen" > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:26 AM > Subject: RE: "In 3 plus years no reporter has asked me anything at an ICANN meeting." > > > > Well Im pleased to be a source of amusement. > ==== > > What is the annual (license|lease) fee for a /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > What /8s have been billed this year ? > http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html > > http://www.icann.org/committees/exec-search/ceo-search-announcement-20nov02.htm > http://www.icann.org/committees/exec-search/ceo-spec-20nov02.htm > The 2002-2003 budget authorizes total expenditures of US$6.2 Million and a staff of 27. > ==== > $6,200,000 / 27 = $229,629.63 > ==== > > Where is the revenue from Address Space Leasing (Licensing) ? > ===== > > > From andrius at andrius.org Mon Nov 25 16:58:38 2002 From: andrius at andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:58:38 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: References: <20021125153146.GB3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> Message-ID: <20021125155837.GC3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:42:38PM +0000, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote: > > Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership status. > > For every IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, > > and oth.? > > This is in effect what SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE is about I guess.. I'm not > sure however that we will benefit from the increased level of fees, but I > would have to look at it more closely. But I think it is inadequate calculation. I didn't see anywhere any specification about how membership status is assigned. Maybe someone can point me out? :-) Andrius From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Mon Nov 25 17:11:43 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:11:43 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <019101c29499$3b914b00$e75f4ad4@doom> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125165331.0216aba0@localhost> At 25 11 2002 15:42 +0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: >If you have less members, and less new members, then >surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE >being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus >on core activities? Neil, Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time consuming, if we want to keep track of the numbering resources involved. Also, a smaller number of members does not mean we get less requests, on the contrary, we are seeing an increase, as the Internet itself has not stopped growing. Over the last year we have been very concerned with getting our service levels back up to where they should be. Now, that we are seeing our measures take first effect, and with further plans like the Secure Web Site becoming reality, we will over the course of the next months be increasing our efficiency considerably. In general, we are doing what our members and the RIPE community wants us to do, and what the Activity Plan 2002 prescribes. kind regards, Axel From andrius at andrius.org Mon Nov 25 17:18:58 2002 From: andrius at andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:18:58 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125165331.0216aba0@localhost> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <5.1.1.6.2.20021125165331.0216aba0@localhost> Message-ID: <20021125161858.GD3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:11:43PM +0100, Axel Pawlik wrote: > Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time > consuming, if we want to keep track of the > numbering resources involved. But, I hope, this "consumed time" is paid by mergers? Andrius From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 17:21:26 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:21:26 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: <13a701c2949e$b4bdb3b0$b8bf2443@repligate> Given that 32-bit IP addresses lease(rent) for $10 to $15 per month... ...and given that Real Estate brokers generally take one month's rent per year as a fee... ....the market value for a /8 would be approximately $168,000,000 per year... How much does RIPE pay (wholesale) for a /8 ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Axel Pawlik" To: "Peter Galbavy" Cc: "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > Dear Peter, > > Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and > yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as > proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC > Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community > and users of RIPE NCC services. > > The RIPE NCC's Activity Plan for 2003 was published for > comment to the community on 17 September this year. The > plan was then presented by the Executive Board of the > RIPE NCC for membership approval at the annual > General Meeting (GM) of the RIPE NCC. This year's GM > was held 29 October 2002. At the meeting, the membership > voted unanimously to approve the fee structure, thereby > increasing their fees. > > The RIPE NCC, operating as a not-for-profit organisation, > budgets on a cost-recovery basis. This implies that we > make an expense proposal and a matching charging scheme. > > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > will have a sizeable deficit this year. > > Membership decisions taken over the course of the years > have made it possible that we can rely on our reserves to > cover the cost of operations this year. To ensure that the > prime goal of our membership is met, namely to run RIPE NCC > operations stably, we have proposed the current figures > for the year 2003. > > The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages > active participation by our members. > > More information is available from the following RIPE Documents: > > - "Highlights from the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2002" located at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/highlights.html > > - "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at: > > http://www/ripe/docs/ap2003.html > > - "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at: > > http://www/ripe/docs/billing2003.html > > kind regards, > > Axel Pawlik > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 17:30:03 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:30:03 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: Message-ID: <13c301c2949f$e8aa9700$b8bf2443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" WHAT makes you think that RIPE NCC pays for addresses? WHOM do you think they pay to? http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html "On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of money transfer is 18 November 2002." From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 17:31:14 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:31:14 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: Message-ID: <13c701c294a0$12de1e20$b8bf2443@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" WHAT makes you think that RIPE NCC pays for addresses? WHOM do you think they pay to? ICANN is a business...ICANN leases Address Space...domain names are a side show...a distraction... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/ From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 17:38:55 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:38:55 -0600 Subject: Release of Portion of Escrow Funds to ICANN...Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: Message-ID: <13d801c294a1$26043290$b8bf2443@repligate> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html Release of Portion of Escrow Funds to ICANN Scott Bradner motioned that the ARIN Board of Trustees authorize the President to release $243,020.00 to ICANN. This represents 50% of the funds that ARIN is holding in escrow pending the execution of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN. This was seconded by Scott Marcus. The Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:28 AM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? note to self: I'll probably regret having a word wih this troll, but I'll take the chances. :) Jim, WHAT makes you think that RIPE NCC pays for addresses? WHOM do you think they pay to? Please don't even mention IPv8/IPv16 this time, they are not in the question so I expect an answer clean of those two. Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 http://boyan.ludost.net/ Just another techie speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:21 PM > To: Peter Galbavy; Axel Pawlik > Cc: Local IR Working Group > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > Given that 32-bit IP addresses lease(rent) for $10 to $15 per month... > ...and given that Real Estate brokers generally take one > month's rent per year as a fee... > ....the market value for a /8 would be approximately > $168,000,000 per year... > > How much does RIPE pay (wholesale) for a /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > === From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 17:44:45 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:44:45 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and > yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as > proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC > Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community > and users of RIPE NCC services. you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or whatever the full quote is. > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > will have a sizeable deficit this year. But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and even potentially some nest-feathering going on. I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase in expenditure ?) > The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages > active participation by our members. I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ? For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? Peter From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 17:56:06 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:56:06 -0600 Subject: Is there an independent board ...Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <13ea01c294a3$8e445c20$b8bf2443@repligate> From: "Peter Galbavy" Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? === RIPE is clearly "under" ARIN...partly because of IN-ADDR.ARPA (ARIN|Nominum) being under .ARPA (ICANN). http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.markletaskforce.org/ http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002 called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" To: "Axel Pawlik" Cc: "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and > > yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as > > proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC > > Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community > > and users of RIPE NCC services. > > you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the > basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or > whatever the full quote is. > > > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > > will have a sizeable deficit this year. > > But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less > 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge > that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and > even potentially some nest-feathering going on. > > I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever > broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is > charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a > not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how > on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase > in expenditure ?) > > > The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages > > active participation by our members. > > I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ? > > For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? > > Peter > From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 17:59:25 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:59:25 -0000 Subject: Is there an independent board ...Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <13ea01c294a3$8e445c20$b8bf2443@repligate> Message-ID: <03ae01c294a4$02960a10$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> My apologies to all for giving Jim Flemming an excuse. That was certainly NOT my intent. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Peter Galbavy" ; "Axel Pawlik" Cc: "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: Is there an independent board ...Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > From: "Peter Galbavy" > Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? > === > > RIPE is clearly "under" ARIN...partly because of IN-ADDR.ARPA (ARIN|Nominum) being under .ARPA (ICANN). > > http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin > http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html > http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 > http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html > http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > http://www.markletaskforce.org/ > http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html > ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada > April 8, 2002 > > called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT > ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Galbavy" > To: "Axel Pawlik" > Cc: "Local IR Working Group" > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > > > Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and > > > yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as > > > proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC > > > Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community > > > and users of RIPE NCC services. > > > > you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the > > basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or > > whatever the full quote is. > > > > > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > > > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > > > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > > > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > > > will have a sizeable deficit this year. > > > > But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less > > 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge > > that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and > > even potentially some nest-feathering going on. > > > > I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever > > broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is > > charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a > > not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how > > on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase > > in expenditure ?) > > > > > The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages > > > active participation by our members. > > > > I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ? > > > > For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? > > > > Peter > > > > From gert at space.net Mon Nov 25 18:18:00 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:18:00 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:44:45PM -0000 References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:44:45PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and > > yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as > > proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC > > Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community > > and users of RIPE NCC services. > > you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the > basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or > whatever the full quote is. But that's not true in this case. The proposed activity plan was announced *right not this list*, and in good time to add comments and eventually make people vote on the AGM against it. [..] > But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less > 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge > that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and > even potentially some nest-feathering going on. While I can understand your anger - why don't you just go and *read* the RIPE document with all the numbers in it? This year there was a net *loss*, as the "new members" rate was far lower than planned - and much of the budget (like RIPE training courses) is planned to be paid from thoese fees. > I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever > broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is > charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? That would be the RIPE board. [..] > For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what *we* put in their activity plan. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 18:25:09 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:25:09 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC Status Update Mr. Axel Pawlik Message-ID: <143401c294a7$9b096a50$b8bf2443@repligate> http://lacnic.net/en/schedule.html RIPE NCC Status Update Mr. Axel Pawlik From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 18:28:05 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:28:05 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > But that's not true in this case. The proposed activity plan was > announced *right not this list*, and in good time to add comments and > eventually make people vote on the AGM against it. ... > While I can understand your anger - why don't you just go and *read* > the RIPE document with all the numbers in it? This year there was a > net *loss*, as the "new members" rate was far lower than planned - and > much of the budget (like RIPE training courses) is planned to be paid > from thoese fees. Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'. What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right. > That would be the RIPE board. OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the right thing... > Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the > body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what > *we* put in their activity plan. I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 18:36:59 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:36:59 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money > can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before > the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget > statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for > anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'. Note to self; learn to type better. You got what I meant though ? > What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget > requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New > members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. > Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral > budget is NOT doing their job right. To follow this up: >From http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html ... Registration budget 2003 4,422,000 Euros ... "The number of tickets received by the RIPE NCC is expected to continue to increase from 30,000 in 2002 to 35,000 in 2003." 4,422,000 / 35,000 ~= 126 Euros/ticket. 126 Euros per ticket ? Thats about 2 hours of average/cheap contacting fees. Mad. While I understand as well as anyone that the costs of running an organisation include many many overheads, the bottom line is that the NCC charge 126 Euros per ticket - which as I see it is the primary activity. Wow. I would *love* a piece of that business on a commercial basis. So would quite a lot of companies I expect. When you get that down to approx. 1 hour of average/cheap contracting fees (50 Euros maybe), I will say you are merely expensive for what we get. Peter From oppermann at pipeline.ch Mon Nov 25 18:43:00 2002 From: oppermann at pipeline.ch (Andre Oppermann) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:43:00 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> Peter Galbavy wrote: > > Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money > can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before > the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget > statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for > anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'. > > What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget > requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New > members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. > Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral > budget is NOT doing their job right. Peter, why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. Cheers -- Andre > > That would be the RIPE board. > > OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here > please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? > If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the > right thing... > > > Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the > > body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what > > *we* put in their activity plan. > > I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the > RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or > anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is > policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. > > Peter From zsako at banknet.net Mon Nov 25 18:48:52 2002 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:48:52 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <200211251748.SAA02973@banknet.banknet.net> > From lir-wg-admin at ripe.net Mon Nov 25 16:59:35 2002 > From: Andrius Kasparavicius > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:42:38PM +0000, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote: > > > > Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership status. > > > For every IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, > > > and oth.? > > > > This is in effect what SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE is about I guess.. I'm not > > sure however that we will benefit from the increased level of fees, but I > > would have to look at it more closely. > > But I think it is inadequate calculation. I didn't see anywhere any > specification about how membership status is assigned. Maybe someone can > point me out? :-) The RIPE NCC Activity plan for 2003 makes reference to the algorithm used to determine the size of a LIR. This is the paragraph 4.1. of RIPE document ripe-146 that you can find at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-146.txt or ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-146.ps This algorithm is used to determine the LIR sizes since 1997, if I am correct. I hope this helps. Best regards, Janos PS: The algorithm tries to take into account the address space already allocated to the LIR, weighted with the age of the allocation. The rationale of this weighting is that the NCC hostmasters have less work with older allocations. This is based on the NCC's experience, as far as I know. > Andrius > From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 18:52:04 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:52:04 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> Message-ID: <040001c294ab$5da75100$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the > budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and > business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very > grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions rather than smug and supercilious comments from you. Peter From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 18:59:05 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:59:05 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Las Vegas, Nevada, US... Message-ID: <003701c294ac$58dc3ef0$cdba2543@repligate> Las Vegas, Nevada, US http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/PPM.html Mader, Sabine RIPE NCC Pawlik, Axel RIPE NCC Rendek, Paul RIPE NCC From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 19:03:01 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:03:01 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> <040001c294ab$5da75100$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <004a01c294ac$e58e7700$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" > > why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the > > budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and > > business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very > > grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. > > I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions.... Remember....one line can build a stadium... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 038/8 Performance Systems International Sep 94 http://www.sportsstorm.com/Stadiums/PSINetStadium/ From oppermann at pipeline.ch Mon Nov 25 19:04:41 2002 From: oppermann at pipeline.ch (Andre Oppermann) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:04:41 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> <040001c294ab$5da75100$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <3DE26639.31B09EA7@pipeline.ch> Peter Galbavy wrote: > > > why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the > > budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and > > business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very > > grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. > > I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions rather than > smug and supercilious comments from you. Hey, YOU fell asleep after reading the first paragraph! All the answers to your questions are on the RIPE website. You'll just have to wake up and use your browser. You are just insulting the people from RIPE NCC and the Board Members with your stupid bullying and ranting about the budget. Instead of insulting these people you could actually make a point by actually reading the budget before it goes to the general assembly for voting. If it doesn't please you, then raise your voice in a polite manner and request changes. If you don't like it even then, you have to cast your vote against it. And if you don't want to go to the coffee club, then send a proxy for your vote. You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not to participate in it. I'm out -- Andre From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 19:14:00 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:14:00 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "RIPE is a democracy" ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> <040001c294ab$5da75100$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26639.31B09EA7@pipeline.ch> Message-ID: <005801c294ae$6e0ea8b0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Oppermann" > > You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not > to participate in it. > Does that mean that all of the parties allocated space under a /8 can "vote" and move as a group ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 062/8 Apr 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) ============================================= How does RIPE pay each year for each /8 ? From gert at space.net Mon Nov 25 19:29:23 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:29:23 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:28:05PM -0000 References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021125192923.J15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:28:05PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > I don't remember asking to be RIPE. By signing the contract that said "I want to be a local registry" you became a member... > I am a paying for the functions of the > RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or > anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is > policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. So vote against those projects. I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value to the community at large. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 19:30:54 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:30:54 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> <040001c294ab$5da75100$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <3DE26639.31B09EA7@pipeline.ch> Message-ID: <042301c294b0$ca1899c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > You are just insulting the people from RIPE NCC and the Board Members > with your stupid bullying and ranting about the budget. I am not bullying. Anyone who knows me, knows better. > Instead of insulting these people you could actually make a point by > actually reading the budget before it goes to the general assembly > for voting. If it doesn't please you, then raise your voice in a polite > manner and request changes. If you don't like it even then, you have > to cast your vote against it. And if you don't want to go to the coffee > club, then send a proxy for your vote. I am raising my voice in a polite way. Asking why a ticket requests budgets out to 126 euros is a question and not a statement of anyones direct competence. > You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not > to participate in it. RIPE has never been a democracy. There is an illusion, and unless a member is prepared to dedicate a full time person to the task, keeping up with the policies and politics is impossible. The whole point of paying RIPE to 'do it' is in the hope that someone else has our best interests at heart. My fear is that RIPE is becoming one of those self-perpetuating NGOs that grows far beyond it's original remit or function. Thinking about this is a practical vein, how about a 'DORMANT' registry category, where the LIR makes less than 5 requests a year ? I am in that roughly that category, and with some tuning, a number of us 'legacy' LIRs would be covered. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Nov 25 19:36:15 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:36:15 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125192923.J15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <043501c294b1$899b6520$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > By signing the contract that said "I want to be a local registry" you > became a member... Of RIPE for only the NCC function... > > I am a paying for the functions of the > > RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or > > anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is > > policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. > > So vote against those projects. > > I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value > to the community at large. I will. I will read up on proxy voting but my suspicion is that not proxy, but postal voting will be the ultimate solution. Without knowing the detail of the proposals in advance (many proposals are formulated at a RIPE meeting) it is difficult to accurately instruct a proxy in a timely fashion. Peter From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Nov 25 19:55:41 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:55:41 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "Each RIR may charge an administration fee..." References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125192923.J15927@Space.Net> <043501c294b1$899b6520$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <009a01c294b4$41359550$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" > > > > I am a paying for the functions of the > > > RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or > > > anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that > is > > > policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. > > > > So vote against those projects. > > > > I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value > > to the community at large. > Apparently, ARIN approves the policies for the other RIRs... http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_2.html "Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of these experimental resources." ==== From seb at ncx.net.uk Mon Nov 25 16:17:40 2002 From: seb at ncx.net.uk (Sebastien Lahtinen) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:17:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <02d201c29493$8c3f7eb0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: I am equally concerned of the rise in fees (although I have been aware it was coming) which I don't see as bringing me anything more value. However, other than mentioning it on the survey that recently took place, I haven't had the time to get involved in more detail with RIPE. It looks like I will have to in future. Sebastien. --- NetConnex Broadband Ltd. tel. +44 870 745 4830 fax. +44 870 745 4831 Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom. On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:01:34 -0000 > From: Peter Galbavy > To: Local IR Working Group > Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > Sorry, maybe I do not participate quite as much as I would like, but the fee > for a SMALL registry has increased by more that 50% in a year. I just got > the invoice and had to back track. My budgets are somewhat unbalanced now... > > That is somewhat high a jump isn't it ? What is the average EU inflation > figure ? 4% ? > > Can someone from the RIPE management comment on how much money is spent on > non-core (IP management, co-ordination and associated registry activities) ? > > I cannot make it to RIPE meetings but I would like to ask someone to raise > this issue formally at the next event. > > rgds, > -- > Peter Galbavy > Knowtion Ltd. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service" > To: "Local IR Working Group" > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:50 PM > Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-260 > > > > [Apologies for duplicate mails] > > > > New RIPE Document Announcement > > -------------------------------------- > > A new document is available from the RIPE document store. > > > > Ref: ripe-260 > > Title: RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003 > > Author: Mireille Ent, Jochem de Ruig > > Date: 31 October 2002 > > Format: PS=359378 TXT=12616 > > Obsoletes: > > Obsoleted by: > > Updates: > > Updated by: > > > > Short content description ------------------------- > > > > The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" outlines the > > billing and payment procedure for members of the RIPE NCC and contains > > additional related information about the RIPE NCC. This document > > should be read in conjunction with the "RIPE NCC General Terms and > > Conditions" and the "RIPE NCC Clearing House Procedure". > > > > > > Accessing the RIPE document store > > --------------------------------- > > > > You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website. > > The "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" is available at > > the following URL: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing2003.html > > > > You can also access the RIPE documents via anonymous FTP to > > ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. > > > > The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: > > > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.ps PostScript version > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-260.txt plain text version > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Jeroen Bet > > RIPE NCC Webmaster > > > > From neil at COLT.NET Mon Nov 25 16:42:16 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:42:16 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: <019101c29499$3b914b00$e75f4ad4@doom> Axel, > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > will have a sizeable deficit this year. > If you have less members, and less new members, then surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus on core activities? Neil. From bkrosnov at lirex.bg Mon Nov 25 17:28:01 2002 From: bkrosnov at lirex.bg (Boyan Krosnov) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:28:01 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: note to self: I'll probably regret having a word wih this troll, but I'll take the chances. :) Jim, WHAT makes you think that RIPE NCC pays for addresses? WHOM do you think they pay to? Please don't even mention IPv8/IPv16 this time, they are not in the question so I expect an answer clean of those two. Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 http://boyan.ludost.net/ Just another techie speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:21 PM > To: Peter Galbavy; Axel Pawlik > Cc: Local IR Working Group > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > Given that 32-bit IP addresses lease(rent) for $10 to $15 per month... > ...and given that Real Estate brokers generally take one > month's rent per year as a fee... > ....the market value for a /8 would be approximately > $168,000,000 per year... > > How much does RIPE pay (wholesale) for a /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > === From phk at critter.freebsd.dk Mon Nov 25 19:19:42 2002 From: phk at critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:19:42 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Las Vegas, Nevada, US... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:59:05 CST." <003701c294ac$58dc3ef0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <74216.1038248382@critter.freebsd.dk> I think this would be a good time for you to stop spamming the list and instead sit down and write up a coherent document where you try to lay out the issues you have. This continued mail-spamming does not gain you any support. Poul-Henning In message <003701c294ac$58dc3ef0$cdba2543 at repligate>, "Jim Fleming" writes: >Las Vegas, Nevada, US >http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/PPM.html > Mader, Sabine RIPE NCC > > Pawlik, Axel RIPE NCC > Rendek, Paul RIPE NCC > > > -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Mon Nov 25 21:33:18 2002 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:33:18 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. Message-ID: <00A17852.BBDDC75A.1@cc.univie.ac.at> The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible on the web server: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that it states, i.a., "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the association." "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above." This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy. Reality check, please! And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. Regards, Wilfried. From gert at space.net Mon Nov 25 22:21:36 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:21:36 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <00A17852.BBDDC75A.1@cc.univie.ac.at>; from woeber@cc.univie.ac.at on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:33:18PM +0100 References: <00A17852.BBDDC75A.1@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20021125222135.M15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:33:18PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. Seconded (in case anybody misunderstood my previous mails) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From mis at atragon.net Tue Nov 26 08:16:08 2002 From: mis at atragon.net (Manfredo Miserocchi) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:16:08 +0100 Subject: R: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <00A17852.BBDDC75A.1@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. Thank you Wilfried Manfredo -- Manfredo Miserocchi Network & Information Security Administration Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Mobile: +39-338-7347906 E-mail mis at atragon.net MM2719-RIPE / MM2719-ITNIC 0141 F1C9 F134 1951 7F31 F9DE DF46 459D F6D0 EE60 -- Atragon s.r.l. - Via G.B. Mauri, 6 20052 - Monza (MI) - Italy RIPE AS15469 - ATRAGON-MNT - LIR it.atragon -- "Lega insieme due uccelli...essi avranno quattro ali...ma non riusciranno a volare." -- From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Nov 26 11:06:08 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:06:08 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> Message-ID: <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Stop ranting _please_. > > I could understand if you were ranting about something which was forced on you > by a narrow vote, but you didn't even try, and it _has_ been announced > beforehand, with apt time to raise your voice in time. I suggest you prepare > better for 2003... Let me clarify my position. I understand fully that this is my OWN fault for not making the time to read and digest every single document issued or places on the web site. I understand that it is my own fault for not turning up to the AGM and either proposing or voting on appropriate items. I will take more care for next year. I will find the money and the time from a non-break even privately maintained legacy network to employ a full time lobbyist as well. Maybe I sound bitter, but I know it was all there - just I have been used to others paying attention on my behalf. Peter From gert at space.net Tue Nov 26 11:38:32 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:38:32 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:06:08AM -0000 References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:06:08AM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > I will take more care for next year. I will find the money and the time from > a non-break even privately maintained legacy network to employ a full time > lobbyist as well. I don't think this is necessary. From my experience, voicing things on the lir-wg mailing list actually *does* have an effect - but it has to be somewhat popular. There was one voice (Stephen Burley) complaining about "money wasted on useless projects", but he did not get any support from anyone else, while a number of people voiced "we think that these things are indeed useful!", so nothing changed. That *is* a problem with majority systems - someone will be dissatisfied in the end. > Maybe I sound bitter, but I know it was all there - just I have been used to > others paying attention on my behalf. Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Nov 26 11:49:27 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:49:27 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again. > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even. > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it > necessary to be a LIR?") For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky. So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). Peter From pfs at cisco.com Tue Nov 26 12:33:58 2002 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:33:58 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <00A17852.BBDDC75A.1@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. ? philip -- At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible > on the web server: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html > > It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim > resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. > > And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In > particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that > it states, i.a., > > > > "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions > proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the > association." > > > "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions > concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related > resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above." > > > This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by > clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front > of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy. > > Reality check, please! > > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. > > Regards, > Wilfried. From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Nov 26 13:08:35 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:08:35 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021126130827.01ef4a38@localhost> At 26 11 2002 09:21 +0100, you wrote: >Perhaps it is possible for you to inform us about steps which are >under way on your side to cut down the expenses? Siegfried, The outstanding "theme" for the RIPE NCC over the past years was to get the service levels right. We have invested a lot of effort and resources into this. We see that these efforts have resulted in shorter, more stable response times. This has given us room to breathe, and tim to plan for real structural changes in the way we interact with our members. This will streamline communication, and actually take a lot of tasks off our hands. The secure web site for members will become the pivotal tool for this. Seeing that demand for our services is still on the rise, despite a much slower growth in membership than expected, and in line with members' comments we take a conservative approach with regard to staffing levels. However, we expect increased efficiency together with the effect LIRs working through the secure web page, to have a positive budgetary impact. When you look at the RIPE NCC budget for the last few years, you will see that after increases of 31%, 27% and 21% for the last three years, we have budgeted for an "inflation correction" of 4% for 2003. This will give us sufficient resources to accomplish our tasks and develop our services as requested. Further, to ensure enduring stability, the 2003 fees will contribute to the reserves, which will have been diminished during the course of 2002. Over the course of 2002 we have kept a close watch on all expense, and certainly continue to do so. regards, Axel From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 14:31:43 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:31:43 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <01f501c29550$29712b40$cdba2543@repligate> From: "Peter Galbavy" "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." ==== When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value. As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch. This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that those at the top of the structures have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html > ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada > April 8, 2002 > > called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT > ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" To: "Gert Doering" Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" ; "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. > > I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the > workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. > I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again. > > > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that > > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a > catastrophe - > > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which > > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. > > OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and > read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot > comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down > and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked > (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced > quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. > I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting > a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even. > > > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial > > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it > > necessary to be a LIR?") > > For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way > to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been > royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA > renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In > terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even > if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one > puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a > 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too > risky. > > So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. > Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and > acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become > an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). > > Peter > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 15:17:26 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:17:26 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE in China... Message-ID: <022101c29556$8c0f6360$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.iab.org/IABmins/IABmins.2002-10-08.html ".ARPA Domain Servers The chair reported that the RIPE NCC has secured an agreement with CNNIC to operate a secondary e164.arpa domain name server in China." ==== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From lars at marowsky-bree.de Mon Nov 25 23:43:19 2002 From: lars at marowsky-bree.de (Lars Marowsky-Bree) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:43:19 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> On 2002-11-25T17:36:59, Peter Galbavy said: > 4,422,000 / 35,000 ~= 126 Euros/ticket. > > 126 Euros per ticket ? Thats about 2 hours of average/cheap contacting fees. > Mad. While I understand as well as anyone that the costs of running an > organisation include many many overheads, the bottom line is that the NCC > charge 126 Euros per ticket - which as I see it is the primary activity. It is _part_ of their activity, not the full scope. If you see that as their primary job, I suggest you write up a reasonable proposal of how to cover your needs and present it at the next RIPE meeting. If the community deems it acceptable, that should work out. Stop ranting _please_. I could understand if you were ranting about something which was forced on you by a narrow vote, but you didn't even try, and it _has_ been announced beforehand, with apt time to raise your voice in time. I suggest you prepare better for 2003... Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br?e -- "I'm extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end." -- Margeret Thatcher From svl at nrw.net Tue Nov 26 09:21:44 2002 From: svl at nrw.net (Siegfried Langenbach) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:21:44 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125165331.0216aba0@localhost> References: <019101c29499$3b914b00$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <3DE33D28.9239.47F356@localhost> Hallo Axel, we all have to "synchronize" our activities to match the so called "new economic situation". Perhaps it is possible for you to inform us about steps which are under way on your side to cut down the expenses? Please understand that we as normal entities under competition are not able to raise our fees when our customers go broken. siegfried On 25 Nov 2002 at 17:11, Axel Pawlik wrote: > At 25 11 2002 15:42 +0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: > >If you have less members, and less new members, then > >surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE > >being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus > >on core activities? > > > Neil, > > Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time > consuming, if we want to keep track of the > numbering resources involved. Also, a smaller > number of members does not mean we get less > requests, on the contrary, we are seeing an > increase, as the Internet itself has not stopped > growing. > > Over the last year we have been very concerned > with getting our service levels back up to > where they should be. Now, that we are seeing > our measures take first effect, and with further > plans like the Secure Web Site becoming reality, > we will over the course of the next months be > increasing our efficiency considerably. > > In general, we are doing what our members and the > RIPE community wants us to do, and what the > Activity Plan 2002 prescribes. > > kind regards, > > Axel > > From neil at COLT.NET Tue Nov 26 12:49:30 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:49:30 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <3DE26124.206216A5@pipeline.ch> Message-ID: <000101c29541$e13c1820$e75f4ad4@doom> Sorry Andre but I'm with Peter on this one. The RIPE fees simply don't add up, its an expensive organisation and it needs to trim a lot of the fat out of it. See Peters message on the tickets, if it really costs that much then we have a severe problem, some people don't even pay that much money for a years worth of DSL access. Regards, Neil. > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Andre Oppermann > Sent: 25 November 2002 17:43 > To: Peter Galbavy > Cc: Gert Doering; Axel Pawlik; Local IR Working Group > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > Peter Galbavy wrote: > > > > Those documents are written in the best > EU-bureaucrating-English that > > money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me > > asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to > (quickly) read the > > 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough > > information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The > document > > says 'X' and not 'X because'. > > > > What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the > > budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not > growth/shrinkage > > neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements > > through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, > but whoever > > created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right. > > Peter, > > why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them > interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue > how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on > this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until > you understand economics 101. > > Cheers > -- > Andre > > > > > That would be the RIPE board. > > > > OK. I remember something about elections, but will any > board members > > here please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? > > Any doubts ? If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest > that you > > are not doing the right thing... > > > > > Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The > RIPE NCC is > > > the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. > > > They do what > > > *we* put in their activity plan. > > > > I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the > functions of > > the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded > > testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a > registration > > service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. > Anything else is > > just profiteering. > > > > Peter > From neil at COLT.NET Tue Nov 26 12:50:50 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:50:50 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] "RIPE is a democracy" ? In-Reply-To: <005801c294ae$6e0ea8b0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <000201c29542$11120910$e75f4ad4@doom> Jim, Do us a favour and take your pointless spam somewhere else. Regards, Neil. > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Jim Fleming > Sent: 25 November 2002 18:14 > To: Andre Oppermann; Peter Galbavy > Cc: Gert Doering; Axel Pawlik; Local IR Working Group > Subject: [lir-wg] "RIPE is a democracy" ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andre Oppermann" > > > > You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you > choose not to > > participate in it. > > > > Does that mean that all of the parties allocated space under > a /8 can "vote" and move as a group ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-> space > > 062/8 > Apr 97 RIPE NCC > (whois.ripe.net) > 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > ============================================= > > How does RIPE pay each year for each /8 ? > > > > From neil at COLT.NET Tue Nov 26 13:02:10 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:02:10 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Message-ID: <003801c29543$a62d76a0$e75f4ad4@doom> I think the RIPE could also look at splitting some of the meetings up and distributing them more. Regards, Neil. > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Philip Smith > Sent: 26 November 2002 11:34 > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Cc: Axel Pawlik > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: > reality check, pls. > > > Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual > general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either > January, April, or > September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their > membership having to > make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At > least that way > more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General > Meeting will be > able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the > discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy > somewhat depressed > and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. > > ? > > philip > -- > > At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible > > on the web server: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html > > > > It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics > (with a verbatim > > resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. > > > > And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In > > particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that > > it states, i.a., > > > > > > > > "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the > resolutions > > proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the > > association." > > > > > > "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions > > concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related > > resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the > > above." > > > > > > This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy > voting, by > > clearly documenting the issues at hand and the > resolutions put in front > > of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by > > proxy. > > > > Reality check, please! > > > > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, > > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. > > > > Regards, > > Wilfried. > From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Nov 26 15:38:23 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:38:23 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <01f501c29550$29712b40$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <016f01c29559$796f9920$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Please note that on principle I disagree with pretty much everything Jim Fleming waffles about. Jim, please do not use my opinions to expound your own. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Peter Galbavy" ; "Gert Doering" Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" ; "Local IR Working Group" Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." > From: "Peter Galbavy" > "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." > ==== > > When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are > against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, > or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very > clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever > perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you > take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the > process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value. > > As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch. > > This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is > really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. > Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", > answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it > is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it > all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that those at the top of the structures > have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the > lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top > of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become > too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow > and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to > the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. > http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm > > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html > > ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada > > April 8, 2002 > > > > called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT > > ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT > > All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Galbavy" > To: "Gert Doering" > Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" ; "Local IR Working Group" > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > > > > > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > > > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > > > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > > > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > > > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the > > workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. > > I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again. > > > > > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that > > > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a > > catastrophe - > > > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which > > > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. > > > > OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and > > read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot > > comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down > > and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked > > (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced > > quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. > > I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting > > a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even. > > > > > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > > > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > > > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial > > > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it > > > necessary to be a LIR?") > > > > For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way > > to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been > > royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA > > renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In > > terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even > > if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one > > puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a > > 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too > > risky. > > > > So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. > > Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and > > acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become > > an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). > > > > Peter > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 15:45:59 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:45:59 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "fees do not add up" ? References: <000101c29541$e13c1820$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <024d01c2955a$8944add0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil J. McRae" Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 5:49 AM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? > Sorry Andre but I'm with Peter on this one. The RIPE fees simply > don't add up, its an expensive organisation and it needs to trim ===== The fees have to add up, money just does not disappear....or should not.... Do the math, there is $168,000,000 per year per /8 in "broker fees"... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Where is it ? http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/staticip/upgrade/ Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! ==== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From fm at st-kilda.org Tue Nov 26 15:52:06 2002 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:52:06 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: At 10:49 +0000 26/11/02, Peter Galbavy wrote: >So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. >Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and >acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become >an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). or perhaps there should be a new "smallest" membership level for organisations that do not need to make ongoing allocations and requests for address space and/or are maintaining legacy space. Perhaps a limit of 3 requests at a figure of 500 Euro, which works out at 3 x 126 Euro cost to the NCC plus a margin to contribute towards other projects. f From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 15:53:54 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:53:54 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <025701c2955b$a48000d0$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05359.html RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 ==== IP Allocations flow....>>>> ICANN---->ARIN---->RIPE---->LIRs---->ISPs---->Users $$<------$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<----- Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 16:08:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:08:16 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN--->RIPE or ICANN--->ARIN--->RIPE ? Message-ID: <027701c2955d$a5f06ed0$cdba2543@repligate> ICANN--->RIPE http://www.icann.org/biog/blokzijl.htm "Robert Blokzijl is a founding member of RIPE, the European open forum for IP networking. Since its foundation in 1989, he has been chairman of this organization, and was instrumental in the creation of RIPE NCC in 1992 as the first Regional Internet Registry in the world." === ICANN--->ARIN--->RIPE ? ...appears to more closely follow the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations... Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 16:26:01 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:26:01 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: Message-ID: <029101c29560$234eefd0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" Can you please explain to us where exactly does your conclusion about "allocations flow" come from? I see the message posted to NANOG by the ARIN Director of Registration Services, Leslie Nobile, which says that IANA has allocated 82/8 to RIPE ====== Who is IANA ?..... Is ICANN IANA ? Is ARIN IANA ? Is the operator of the .ARPA servers IANA ? Who owns 82.IN-ADDR.ARPA ?....who updates that DNS entry ?...what is the value of that entry ? http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-iab-arpa-00.txt April 28, 2000 Mr. Louis Touton Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Re: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020: Administration of the ARPA Top Level Domain Dear Mr. Touton: As noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain name system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one record, in- addrARPA. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its disassociation with the ARPA domain and its understanding the domain would be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN) and Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional Internet infrastructure uses. In keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the ARPA domain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose. The Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS entry for the ARPA domain reflect IANA as the registrant. Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that "[ICANN] will perform other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC." As such, the Department of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions, ICANN undertake administration of the ARPA TLD in cooperation with the Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a limited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications, including the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that currently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA, the ARPA TLD string should be given a different expansion such as "Address and Routing Parameter Area" to avoid any implication that DARPA has operational responsibility for the domain. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Karen Rose Purchase Order Technical Representative From mel at csi.ch Tue Nov 26 16:03:01 2002 From: mel at csi.ch (Maarten E. Linthorst) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:03:01 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> <037a01c294a1$f61482a0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125181800.H15927@Space.Net> <03de01c294a8$03f61270$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <03ea01c294a9$41f1ba60$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021125224319.GD29826@marowsky-bree.de> <007601c29533$70e80600$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> <00ae01c29539$7e4327c0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <3DE38D25.9060903@csi.ch> Fearghas McKay wrote: >At 10:49 +0000 26/11/02, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > >>So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. >>Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and >>acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become >>an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). >> >> > >or perhaps there should be a new "smallest" membership level for >organisations that do not need to make ongoing allocations and requests for >address space and/or are maintaining legacy space. > >Perhaps a limit of 3 requests at a figure of 500 Euro, which works out at 3 >x 126 Euro cost to the NCC plus a margin to contribute towards other >projects > > This would solve the ongoing discussion and bring RIPE more happy customers :) Maarten Linthorst -- Maarten E. Linthorst mailto:mel at csi.ch GoldNet / CSI Communications Systems Inc. AG Grundstrasse 66 tel +41 1 9266142 fax +41 1 9266145 CH-8712 Staefa Switzerland http://www.csi.ch http://www.goldnet.ch http://www.ftserver.ch From bkrosnov at lirex.bg Tue Nov 26 16:17:18 2002 From: bkrosnov at lirex.bg (Boyan Krosnov) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:17:18 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: Chill out Jim. Can you please explain to us where exactly does your conclusion about "allocations flow" come from? I see the message posted to NANOG by the ARIN Director of Registration Services, Leslie Nobile, which says that IANA has allocated 82/8 to RIPE NCC, and that RIPE will begin making allocations. But nothing related to the ARIN invlolvement in this process, neither about "$$$$"s. Where does your conclusion for "Allocations flow" and "$$$$$" flow come from then? I may just be too dumb to see the conspiracy behind the scenes, and excuse me about it. _EVEN IF_ you are right about it all you will have to make a great effort to educate and share with the community. And _NO_, messages like this one will not earn you any points of support. Try to be more descriptive. To write longer messages. To accumulate and systematize the information that you have gathered. There is no use for 5 messages of 2 lines every day. Links don't do any good if they are not properly described. Try to also explain the flow of thought that takes you from point A to point B, as in this case from the Nobile->NANOG message to "Allocations flow" and "$$$$". Still as dumb as a network engineer from Eastern Europe, Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 http://boyan.ludost.net/ Just another techie speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:54 PM > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 > > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05359.html > RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 > ==== > > IP Allocations flow....>>>> > ICANN---->ARIN---->RIPE---->LIRs---->ISPs---->Users > $$<------$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$<------$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<----- > > > Jim Fleming > 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... > IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI > ...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 16:40:32 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:40:32 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: Message-ID: <02a701c29562$284e29e0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" Where does your conclusion for "Allocations flow" and "$$$$$" flow come from then? ======= Note: .BG already has a /8 on the FM Internet... 3*256 = 768 768 / 8 = 96 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 096/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 097/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 098/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved === 098/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:16 DETERGENT 3:17 SAUNA 3:18 RADICAL 3:19 BG (BULGARIA) <<<<<<<<< 3:20 BUCHAREST 3:21 MCO (MONACO) 3:22 VACATION 3:23 PRT (PORTUGAL) ============================= Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Nov 26 16:43:46 2002 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:43:46 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RE: From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <00A178F3.73E5066A.27@cc.univie.ac.at> >Can you please explain to us .... NO, pls. don't even _ask_ for it ;-) We're already getting more than our reasonable share of noise _without_ asking for it.... -W. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 16:45:06 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:45:06 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <02b801c29562$cb8d8ba0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" Reading the draft below it seems that ICANN perporms some of the functions of IANA, including the administration of the arpa TLD.... http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-iab-arpa-00.txt Do you then conclude that RIPE should pay ICANN directly ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Does it matter who RIPE pays the $168,000,000 per /8 per year to ? ====== From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 16:52:15 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:52:15 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RE: From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: <00A178F3.73E5066A.27@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <02d201c29563$cb5e48d0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: [lir-wg] RE: From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 > >Can you please explain to us .... > > NO, pls. don't even _ask_ for it ;-) > > We're already getting more than our reasonable share of noise _without_ > asking for it.... > AM is very noisy....and low quality.... FM has less noise and is much higher quality.... Are you familiar with AM and FM ? 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 17:03:57 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:03:57 -0600 Subject: 3:185...Re: [lir-wg] RE: From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: <00A178F3.73E5066A.27@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <02df01c29565$6d4f1510$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" > > NO, pls. don't even _ask_ for it ;-) > Once 2003 is here, the software will automatically remove any TLD that does not have IN-ADDR.[TLD]. That frees up slots for other TLD Managers. 3:185 AT (AUSTRIA) http://www.IN-ADDR.DE 3*256 = 768 768+184 = 952 952/8 = 119 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 119/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:184 CH (SWITZERLAND) 3:185 AT (AUSTRIA) 3:186 INSTANCE 3:187 ROLL 3:188 RUGS 3:189 DISH 3:190 SI (SLOVENIA) 3:191 EVEN ===== From neil at COLT.NET Tue Nov 26 17:20:12 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:20:12 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RE: "fees do not add up" ? In-Reply-To: <024d01c2955a$8944add0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <000001c29567$b2cc9fc0$e75f4ad4@doom> > Where is it ? When you find it let us know. [and I'm not talking about the money]. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 17:23:21 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:23:21 -0600 Subject: 3:207...Fw: [lir-wg] RE: From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <02ed01c29568$2366eb00$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hallgren" > Michael Hallgren, http://m.hallgren.free.fr/, MH2198-RIPE > === You can check for IN-ADDR.FR http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm 3:204 WARSAW 3:205 TRUSS 3:206 SE (SWEDEN) 3:207 FR (FRANCE) 3:208 ATHENS 3:209 FLAKE 3:210 DK (DENMARK) ==== Note...the 11-bits (3:207) can fit in the existing IPv4 headers... From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 17:29:41 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:29:41 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: "fees do not add up" ? References: <000001c29567$b2cc9fc0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <030501c29569$06183670$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil J. McRae" Subject: RE: "fees do not add up" ? > > Where is it ? > > When you find it let us know. [and I'm not talking about the money]. > I am sure they will... http://computerwire.info/cgnews/0C5EB2128724112B08256C7D000946E8 http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.markletaskforce.org/ http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 18:01:45 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:01:45 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Annual Meeting in Amsterdam Message-ID: <032901c2956d$80857900$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-13nov02.htm http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-lir-aso/sld002.html Address Council Membership RIPE Region a.. Hans-Petter Holen* b.. Sabine Jaume c.. Wilfried Woeber ======= From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 18:20:41 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:20:41 -0600 Subject: 3:19...Re: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: Message-ID: <034501c29570$260235b0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" I know that Bulgaria has the whole 3:19 ====== 3:19 maps to 98.0.0.0 for TOS!=0,0x0*,0x*0 3*256 = 768...768+19 = 787....787 / 8 = 98... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 098/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:17 SAUNA 3:19 BG (BULGARIA) <<<<<<<<< ============================= http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?tld=sauna&record=NS ==== http://register.icann.org/cgi/amsterdam_attendees.cgi 6 Axel Pawlik Axel Pawlik The RIPE NCC NL 7 Carsten Schiefner Carsten Schiefner The RIPE NCC NL 13 Rob Blokzijl Rob Blokzijl ICANN Board of Directors Netherlands ==== In Texas they have a saying...."Big Hat, No Cattle"... From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 18:37:21 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:37:21 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "...need to raise funding for first half of 2003..." Message-ID: <035f01c29572$79b52440$cdba2543@repligate> How much does RIPE currently pay to ICANN ? http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00184.html (3) The ICANN budget will not support much funding for the GNSO in first half of 2003, so our budget assumptions are still valid (ie the GNSO will need to raise funding for first half of 2003). ===== From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 18:49:24 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:49:24 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] "...RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN..." ? Message-ID: <036d01c29574$28f58840$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/minutes/twenty-nine.html All were convinced that in close cooperation with the IETF + IAB and the name registries the RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN. AP reported that a new joint RIR statement is expected to be published during the weeks to come. The remaining 50% of the ICANN contribution is not to be paid until further instruction from the Executive Board. The Executive Board wants to check whether payment will be beneficial to the RIPE NCC or to the Internet. ======================= http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/ "The RIPE NCC currently supports 3150 Local Internet Registries (LIRs) who collectively form the RIPE NCC membership." From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 26 19:14:11 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:14:11 -0600 Subject: BG...Re: [lir-wg] From ARIN...RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 References: Message-ID: <038a01c29577$9f2bf460$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boyan Krosnov" Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 http://boyan.ludost.net/ ==== BG was not selected for several reasons....the main one was that A would end up by itself... A...BG...HM...NR...SZ Since B is between A-M and A-C either of those nodes can be used to locate the BG TLD... It is up to the BG TLD Manager to then suggest that people use BG.AM or BG.AC... As for BG.EU that is a different plan some people have... Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 26 19:57:19 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:57:19 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] can we sack Flemming ?? Message-ID: <000201c2957d$a52b8aa0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> He is not adding any value to this list and is distracting it away from its more useful flames and comments about various RIPE functions. Flemming has been sacked from the ARIN, NANOG, IETF lists and had his account canceled by at least one provider in the last several months after violating various AUP's. From CHallam at sdlintl.com Wed Nov 27 03:45:00 2002 From: CHallam at sdlintl.com (Chris Hallam) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:45:00 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN Message-ID: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> If my assumptions are correct, the point being made here is that the RIPE NCC is being questioned over the use of funds, generated from the LIRs, to support other organisations. In this case the ICANN. While it would be interesting to know the sum paid by the RIPE NCC to ICANN, as outlined in the document below, the matter is already under focus, and the remaining 50% of the contribution is not going to be paid unless the Executive Board says otherwise. If other participants of this forum agree that contributions to ICANN should be suspended, then those people need to voice their opinions to ensure the Executive Board don't change their minds. I, for one, haven't looked closely into the operations of ICANN, but if the general opinion is that, 'the RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN.', then I am happy to accept that judgement. The full document for the 29th Meeting of the RIPE NCC Executive Board can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/minutes/twenty-nine.html Financial information relating to ICANN can be found here: http://www.icann.org/financials/ One document that caught my attention was the Report of Expense Reimbursement and Other Payments to ICANN Directors: http://www.icann.org/financials/director-expenses-fye2002.htm Chris -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] Sent: 27 November 2002 02:37 To: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: [lir-wg] "...need to raise funding for first half of 2003..." How much does RIPE currently pay to ICANN ? http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00184.html (3) The ICANN budget will not support much funding for the GNSO in first half of 2003, so our budget assumptions are still valid (ie the GNSO will need to raise funding for first half of 2003). ===== ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 04:41:18 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:41:18 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> Message-ID: <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> From: "Chris Hallam" > I, for one, haven't looked closely into the operations of ICANN, but if the > general opinion is that, 'the RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN.', > then I am happy to accept that judgement. ================================================= The U.S. Department of Commerce has indicated that it wants ICANN to be well-funded. The market value for each /8 is about $168,000,000 per year. Leasing 100 or 200 of those per year should keep ICANN "well-funded"...100 would generate $16,800,000,000. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-10jul02.htm "The Department will also consider whether ICANN has a mechanism to ensure adequate financial and personnel resources to carry out its mission." http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-26nov02.htm http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2002_0408.html Release of Portion of Escrow Funds to ICANN Scott Bradner motioned that the ARIN Board of Trustees authorize the President to release $243,020.00 to ICANN. This represents 50% of the funds that ARIN is holding in escrow pending the execution of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN. This ==================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Hallam" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN > If my assumptions are correct, the point being made here is that the RIPE > NCC is being questioned over the use of funds, generated from the LIRs, to > support other organisations. In this case the ICANN. > > While it would be interesting to know the sum paid by the RIPE NCC to ICANN, > as outlined in the document below, the matter is already under focus, and > the remaining 50% of the contribution is not going to be paid unless the > Executive Board says otherwise. If other participants of this forum agree > that contributions to ICANN should be suspended, then those people need to > voice their opinions to ensure the Executive Board don't change their minds. > > I, for one, haven't looked closely into the operations of ICANN, but if the > general opinion is that, 'the RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN.', > then I am happy to accept that judgement. > > The full document for the 29th Meeting of the RIPE NCC Executive Board can > be found here: > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/minutes/twenty-nine.html > > Financial information relating to ICANN can be found here: > http://www.icann.org/financials/ > > One document that caught my attention was the Report of Expense > Reimbursement and Other Payments to ICANN Directors: > http://www.icann.org/financials/director-expenses-fye2002.htm > > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > Sent: 27 November 2002 02:37 > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [lir-wg] "...need to raise funding for first half of 2003..." > > > How much does RIPE currently pay to ICANN ? > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00184.html > (3) The ICANN budget will not support much funding for the GNSO in first > half of 2003, so our budget assumptions are still valid (ie the GNSO will > need to raise funding for first half of 2003). > ===== > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > ********************************************************************** > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 05:27:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:27:16 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> Message-ID: <04dc01c295cd$44c746e0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Hallam" > > While it would be interesting to know the sum paid by the RIPE NCC to ICANN, > as outlined in the document below, the matter is already under focus, and > the remaining 50% of the contribution is not going to be paid unless the > Executive Board says otherwise. Why would that be an acceptable solution ? What happens if the LIRs all decide that they will not pay ? What happens if the subscribers decide that they will not pay ? What happens if the LIRs decide to deal directly with ICANN ? An LIR should easily be able to get some /8s to lease. Why are only certain companies allowed to be ICANN customers ? Do all of these companies pay the same for their /8s ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 003/8 May 94 General Electric Company 004/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 005/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved 006/8 Feb 94 Army Information Systems Center 007/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved 008/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 009/8 Aug 92 IBM 010/8 Jun 95 IANA - Private Use See [RFC1918] 011/8 May 93 DoD Intel Information Systems 012/8 Jun 95 AT&T Bell Laboratories 013/8 Sep 91 Xerox Corporation 014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network 015/8 Jul 94 Hewlett-Packard Company 016/8 Nov 94 Digital Equipment Corporation 017/8 Jul 92 Apple Computer Inc. ===== From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 05:35:15 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:35:15 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] CENTR Could Also Lease /8s ? Message-ID: <04ea01c295ce$620b8940$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.centr.org/news/vacancy-6.html COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN NATIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRIES Vacancy: General Manager ====================================================== CENTR could also obtain some /8s and lease those to LIRs. That could be a large source of stable funding. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space From keith.talent at eudoramail.com Wed Nov 27 06:36:25 2002 From: keith.talent at eudoramail.com (Keith Talent) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:36:25 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] can we sack Flemming ?? Message-ID: Too much spam and gibberish is severely damaging the usefulness of this list. I know that individuals can filter the loons out of their own email, but that doesn't help the web archive. We should do something to clean this up. This list should be a forum for open discussion, but not wilfull disinformation. Fleming has has own mad barrow to push but it has nothing to do with this list. And as for Jeff Williams, every email he sends contains lies (especially any statements about his identity). Neither of them has any interest in the Internet community in this region and neither of them has ever shown any attempt to make a positive contribution. Let's reclaim the list from the maddies. --- ********************************* Keith Talent Snr Sys Admin MSCE DART Problem? What problem? ********************************* Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 07:24:04 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:24:04 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? Message-ID: <052d01c295dd$95b0faf0$cdba2543@repligate> What "Region" is RIPE ? http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/ http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/data/source_add_pre_as.txt US 704056771 (50.357%) 65945 (58.259%) 5899 (53.317%) AU 14416063 ( 1.031%) 5894 ( 5.207%) 213 ( 1.925%) CA 26436124 ( 1.891%) 5313 ( 4.694%) 239 ( 2.160%) ZA 6533529 ( 0.467%) 2703 ( 2.388%) 35 ( 0.316%) ?? 306555022 (21.926%) 2547 ( 2.250%) 276 ( 2.495%) DE 51874361 ( 3.710%) 2410 ( 2.129%) 402 ( 3.633%) From martinandersen at passagen.se Wed Nov 27 07:34:18 2002 From: martinandersen at passagen.se (martinandersen at passagen.se) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:34:18 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] can we sack Flemming ?? In-Reply-To: <000201c2957d$a52b8aa0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <3DA55D4300012FEC@webmail-se1.sol.no1.asap-asp.net> I agree. He is not only 'not adding value', but he is damaging the discussions on this list. It is spam and should be blocked. Martin Andersen >-- Original Message -- >Reply-To: >From: "John M. Brown" >To: "'RIPE Local IR Working Grouo'" >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:57:19 -0700 >Subject: [lir-wg] can we sack Flemming ?? > > >He is not adding any value to this list and is distracting >it away from its more useful flames and comments about various >RIPE functions. > >Flemming has been sacked from the ARIN, NANOG, IETF lists >and had his account canceled by at least one provider in the >last several months after violating various AUP's. > > > > > _______________________________________________________ S?k f?retag p? Gula Sidorna http://www.gulasidorna.se From keith.talent at eudoramail.com Wed Nov 27 07:52:29 2002 From: keith.talent at eudoramail.com (Keith Talent) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:52:29 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? Message-ID: >What "Region" is RIPE ? And what region are you in, Jim? Have you ever been to a RIPE meeting? Or an ARIN meeting? Or APNIC or LACNIC? Or even ICANN for that matter? Have you ever listened to anything that anyone else has said? Have you ever taken the time to actually find out what the RIRs do? Because it's obvious from your posts that you really haven't got a clue. So why should anyone listen to you? If the IPv4/IPv6 Internet is evil, then get off it. You can go and rule the "IPv8/IPv16" Internet and leave the rest of us alone. --- ********************************* Keith Talent Snr Sys Admin MSCE DART Problem? What problem? ********************************* On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:24:04 Jim Fleming wrote: >What "Region" is RIPE ? > >http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/ > >http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/data/source_add_pre_as.txt >US 704056771 (50.357%) 65945 (58.259%) 5899 (53.317%) >AU 14416063 ( 1.031%) 5894 ( 5.207%) 213 ( 1.925%) >CA 26436124 ( 1.891%) 5313 ( 4.694%) 239 ( 2.160%) >ZA 6533529 ( 0.467%) 2703 ( 2.388%) 35 ( 0.316%) >?? 306555022 (21.926%) 2547 ( 2.250%) 276 ( 2.495%) >DE 51874361 ( 3.710%) 2410 ( 2.129%) 402 ( 3.633%) > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 07:57:23 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:57:23 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? References: Message-ID: <054c01c295e2$3e51a200$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Talent" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? > >What "Region" is RIPE ? > > And what region are you in, Jim? > What are the choices ? IPv16... COM...NET... AM...NZ... AE...FM...NR...SZ... AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ From hank at att.net.il Wed Nov 27 06:32:53 2002 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:32:53 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN In-Reply-To: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl. com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021127070255.00fbe608@max.att.net.il> At 02:45 AM 27-11-02 +0000, Chris Hallam wrote: I've read over: RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2002 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2002.html RIPE NCC Annual Report 2001 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ar2001.html#financial RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html and I have a few questions and comments: 1) Paying ICANN is part of doing being a RIR. I have no complaints here. 2) Where can I find a proposed 2002 budget, which compares itself against 2001? In the same vein, where can I find a proposed 2003 budget? I was not able to find anything like this within the RIPE document store. 3) In the annual report expenses are broken down into 4 categories: personnel, operational, RIPE meetings and LIR training and depreciation. On the other hand, the annual report breaks NCC activities down into the following main categories: registration, training, database services, test traffic (ttm), routing information (RIS), security (DISI), infrastructure, RIPE. Can RIPE NCC provide a budget whereby expenses are broken down by activity as well? Until I have answers to 2 &3 above, there is NO way I can say RIPE NCC is doing a good or bad job in managing its money and everyone else who focuses on one financial tidbit or another is just guessing as well. Without going into specifics, RIPE NCC has to realize that almost every ISP has downsized to the tune of 10-25% (if not more). Every ISP has cut back its CAPEX. Non-profits have a harder time in down-sizing and cutting back on non-essential activities since they are not profit driven. I would hope that the 2002 budget will show a reduction from the 2001 expenses of 7.8MEuro. This one facet alone will show that RIPE NCC is tracking the general ISP industry. -Hank >If my assumptions are correct, the point being made here is that the RIPE >NCC is being questioned over the use of funds, generated from the LIRs, to >support other organisations. In this case the ICANN. > >While it would be interesting to know the sum paid by the RIPE NCC to ICANN, >as outlined in the document below, the matter is already under focus, and >the remaining 50% of the contribution is not going to be paid unless the >Executive Board says otherwise. If other participants of this forum agree >that contributions to ICANN should be suspended, then those people need to >voice their opinions to ensure the Executive Board don't change their minds. > >I, for one, haven't looked closely into the operations of ICANN, but if the >general opinion is that, 'the RIRs can fulfil their mission without ICANN.', >then I am happy to accept that judgement. > >The full document for the 29th Meeting of the RIPE NCC Executive Board can >be found here: >http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/minutes/twenty-nine.html > >Financial information relating to ICANN can be found here: >http://www.icann.org/financials/ > >One document that caught my attention was the Report of Expense >Reimbursement and Other Payments to ICANN Directors: >http://www.icann.org/financials/director-expenses-fye2002.htm > > >Chris > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] >Sent: 27 November 2002 02:37 >To: lir-wg at ripe.net >Subject: [lir-wg] "...need to raise funding for first half of 2003..." > > >How much does RIPE currently pay to ICANN ? > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00184.html >(3) The ICANN budget will not support much funding for the GNSO in first >half of 2003, so our budget assumptions are still valid (ie the GNSO will >need to raise funding for first half of 2003). >===== > > > >********************************************************************** >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >the system manager. >********************************************************************** From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 09:10:50 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:10:50 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021127070255.00fbe608@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <058201c295ec$7fc347c0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Nussbacher" Non-profits have a harder time in down-sizing and cutting back > on non-essential activities since they are not profit driven. I would hope > that the 2002 budget will show a reduction from the 2001 expenses of > 7.8MEuro. =========== That does not appear to be consistent with government spending in the post-9-11 era. It would seem **more likely** that RIPE would have a budget 10 times the current budget to be able to hire all of the people from the companies that you claim have downsized. Whitehouse Ready to Release Next Generation Internet Plan http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=politech http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/ Note: The new plan calls for the same architecture used with IPv8 and IPv16, whereby, users do not have direct access to the (out-of-band) IPv16 network. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From support at form-net.com Wed Nov 27 09:23:16 2002 From: support at form-net.com (Wycliffe Bahati) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:23:16 +0300 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021127070255.00fbe608@max.att.net.il> <058201c295ec$7fc347c0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <3DE480F4.2060702@form-net.com> Hi can you keep this stuff to yourself or start a mailing list we will subscribe. Is someone at RIPE watching this list Jim Fleming wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hank Nussbacher" > Non-profits have a harder time in down-sizing and cutting back > >>on non-essential activities since they are not profit driven. I would hope >>that the 2002 budget will show a reduction from the 2001 expenses of >>7.8MEuro. >> >=========== > >That does not appear to be consistent with government spending in the post-9-11 era. >It would seem **more likely** that RIPE would have a budget 10 times the current budget >to be able to hire all of the people from the companies that you claim have downsized. > >Whitehouse Ready to Release Next Generation Internet Plan >http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=politech >http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html >http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/ >Note: The new plan calls for the same architecture used with IPv8 and IPv16, >whereby, users do not have direct access to the (out-of-band) IPv16 network. > >Jim Fleming >2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... >http://ipv8.dyndns.tv >http://ipv8.yi.org >http://ipv8.dyns.cx >http://ipv8.no-ip.com >http://ipv8.no-ip.org >http://ipv8.no-ip.biz >http://ipv8.no-ip.info >http://ipv8.myip.us >http://ipv8.dyn.ee >http://ipv8.community.net.au >http://ipv8.ods.org > > > > > From neil at COLT.NET Wed Nov 27 09:48:59 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:48:59 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005201c295f1$d413f590$e75f4ad4@doom> > And what region are you in, Jim? He has boldy gone where no man has gone before. [or would want to go for that matter]. From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Nov 27 09:50:24 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:50:24 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN In-Reply-To: <3DE480F4.2060702@form-net.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021127070255.00fbe608@max.att.net.il> <058201c295ec$7fc347c0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021127094810.02105d30@localhost> At 27 11 2002 11:23 +0300, you wrote: >Is someone at RIPE watching this list Of course. We are waiting for the chairpeople of the LIR working group to instruct us on this matter. regards, Axel From leo at ripe.net Wed Nov 27 10:53:32 2002 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:53:32 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New IPv4 blcok allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <20021127095332.GA27059@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 82.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in November 2002. We will begin allocating from this range in the near future. 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: Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services From gert at space.net Wed Nov 27 11:34:20 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:34:20 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? In-Reply-To: <052d01c295dd$95b0faf0$cdba2543@repligate>; from JimFleming@ameritech.net on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:24:04AM -0600 References: <052d01c295dd$95b0faf0$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <20021127113420.R15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:24:04AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > What "Region" is RIPE ? Well, it's the RIPE region, of course. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Nov 27 11:35:41 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:35:41 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] GM 2002 (and older) documents Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021127111402.01f04da0@localhost> Dear all, to complement Wilfried's pointer to the invitation to the General Meeting, I want to point you towards the link of the proceedings: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/ Further, http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/index.html supplies a complete trail of documentation including proposal documents from 1999. Earlier meeting minutes are present. To complete the list, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/alltitle.html contains all planning documents from 1995 on (ripe-125). regards, Axel From keith.talent at eudoramail.com Wed Nov 27 13:11:24 2002 From: keith.talent at eudoramail.com (Keith Talent) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:11:24 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? Message-ID: This answer from Fleming demonstrates exactly why he should be banned from this list. Until he can be bothered to find out the basics of RIPE operations, he doesn't deserve to be allowed to post. He treats the rest of us with contempt. Why should we allow him the right to stay on our lists? On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:57:23 Jim Fleming wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Keith Talent" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:52 AM >Subject: Re: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? > > >> >What "Region" is RIPE ? >> >> And what region are you in, Jim? >> > >What are the choices ? > >IPv16... >COM...NET... >AM...NZ... >AE...FM...NR...SZ... >AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ > > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Nov 27 13:14:06 2002 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:14:06 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c2960e$7c2d5750$210d640a@unfix.org> Keith Talent wrote: > >What "Region" is RIPE ? > > And what region are you in, Jim? > > > If the IPv4/IPv6 Internet is evil, then get off it. > > You can go and rule the "IPv8/IPv16" Internet and leave the > rest of us alone. And now the good part about his IPv8 and IPv16 delusion. (Yep nicely pasted from ietf lists which he also spammed and to which he doesn't have an answer as it undermines it all ;) Dear Mister Jim Fleming, You might read up on your IPv8 ideas and check: http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers there you will notice the following piece: 8<------------ Assigned Internet Version Numbers Decimal Keyword Version References ------- ------- ------- ---------- 0 Reserved [JBP] 1-3 Unassigned [JBP] 4 IP Internet Protocol [RFC791,JBP] 5 ST ST Datagram Mode [RFC1190,JWF] 6 IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6 [RFC1752] 7 TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet [RXU] 8 PIP The P Internet Protocol [PXF] 9 TUBA TUBA [RXC] 10-14 Unassigned [JBP] 15 Reserved [JBP] ------------>8 IPv8 == PIP (The P internet Protocol), check for instance: http://ntrg.cs.tcd.ie/undergrad/4ba2/ipng/ian.pip.html Quote: "PIP has provider rooted variable length hierarchical addressing. IP has static 32 bit addresses." Thus you are absolutely missing the point with your 64 bits and 128 bits. As for your imaginary IPv16, it won't even fit in the version field. Nor are there any documents to be found about it. Now go make up your own namingscheme, create the documents for the protocols you invented and then submit those to the IETF, which will review them and maybe then you will be taken serious and not taken for the spammer which you currently are. Greets, Jeroen From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Nov 27 14:10:01 2002 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:10:01 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Stop arguing with J*m! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> Berislav Todorovic wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > >> And now the good part about his IPv8 and IPv16 delusion. > >> (Yep nicely pasted from ietf lists which he also spammed and > >> to which he doesn't have an answer as it undermines it all ;) > > Jeroen and others, > > In order to save our mailing lists, please STOP any discussion with > this guy. IPv8 and IPv16 are myths, like "C+@" was (an older Jim's > "invention", in the time he used to flood C++ related newsgroups). If you actually read it you would have read also that I know that it is a myth and that he is abusing the wordings of IPv8 (actually PIP). I didn't know that he used to spam the C++ newsgroups though :) Apparently that went away. So I wonder how that succeeded. > Answering Jim only encourages him to send more and more clueless > lists of URL's. Actually he doesn't have an answer and can't possibly answer with a lot of clueless url's of which the only reason doing that possibly is to pollute the web archives and get a higher linkage score on google etc. And it certainly pollutes as the signal to noise ratio is disturbing at the moment, if someone tries to seek in them now they would only see a load of spam and move on to the next place possibly skipping useful information. > Hans Peter, you still around? Most people asked for removal of Jim > from this mailing list. So, since there is a de facto consensus on > this issue can you, as a chair, ask RIPE NCC to act? Indeed, like on all the other lists he has spammed. They banned him from the IETF lists for a month and after that he simply started all over again. Currently he prefers RIPE lists though :( Greets, Jeroen From neil at COLT.NET Wed Nov 27 14:29:52 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:29:52 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. Regards, Neil. From gert at space.net Wed Nov 27 14:32:13 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:32:13 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom>; from neil@COLT.NET on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0000 References: <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20021127143213.V15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: > As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally > ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings > subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. I have for a long time argued for "the RIPE lists have to be *open*", but I want to second Neil's request now. Jim Fleming is not listening, and just disturbing the open processes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 14:43:25 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:43:25 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Should we release the C@t ? Message-ID: <05ae01c2961a$f631a540$cdba2543@repligate> Should we release the C at t ? http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/ http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0208/25.jaguar.php Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 15:09:57 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:09:57 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ITU covers "RIPE Region" and .EU Message-ID: <062e01c2961e$ab2a3310$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/cctld/index.html Co-Chairmen of the Workshop: a.. Mr. Philippe DISTLER, ART, France, Chairman of ITU-T SG2 (as of 1 January 2003) b.. Mr. Willie BLACK, Nominet, UK, Chairman of CENTR ===== From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 15:34:54 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:34:54 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE is 0:1 .NET ? Message-ID: <063d01c29622$273897f0$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.icann.org/general/amend3-jpamou-25may01.htm "1. The agreements entitled ".com Registry Agreement," ".net Registry Agreement," and ".org Registry Agreement" between ICANN and VeriSign, Inc. and relating to the provision of registry services for the .com, .net, and .org registries are hereby approved by the DOC in substitution for the Registry Agreement between ICANN and Network Solutions, Inc., effective date November 10, 1999. ICANN will not enter into any material amendment of, or substitution for, said agreements, nor will said agreements be assigned by ICANN, without prior approval of the DOC." ====== AM is 0 NZ is 1 ....but NZ is not open like AM so some people want OZ and AN.......AN...OZ NET begins with N so it would go under NZ or under AN....some want it under AN...not under OZ RIPE.NET.AN RIPE.NET.NZ In the end, the software finds the .NET TLD servers and therefore RIPE.NET... ....so .NET is in Switzerland.... http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/ ...with AM and FM (NZ)....you still have 0:82 and 1:82 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space RIPE seems to think it has 0 and 1 (AM and FM)... ----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" To: ; Cc: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:53 AM Subject: [lir-wg] New IPv4 blcok allocated to RIPE NCC > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 82.0.0.0/8 from the > IANA in November 2002. We will begin allocating from this range > in the near future. > > 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: > > > > Kind regards, > > -- > leo vegoda > RIPE NCC > Registration Services From webmaster at keyworld.net Wed Nov 27 16:28:04 2002 From: webmaster at keyworld.net (Chris Ransley) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:28:04 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE is 0:1 .NET ? Message-ID: <539500AAE31E4B4CBDDB67AED88D5833049E0B@exchange.keyworld.net> Jim do you possibly have nothing better to do. Please stop sending such JUNK it is not appreciated. Best Regards, Christian Ransley B.Sc. Web & Technical Services Manager Keyworld Ltd. UB42, Industrial Zone San Gwann SGN 09 Tel: (+356) 2540 2540 Fax: (+356) 2540 9999 Email: webmaster at keyworld.net Website: http://www.keyworld.net -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:35 PM To: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE is 0:1 .NET ? http://www.icann.org/general/amend3-jpamou-25may01.htm "1. The agreements entitled ".com Registry Agreement," ".net Registry Agreement," and ".org Registry Agreement" between ICANN and VeriSign, Inc. and relating to the provision of registry services for the .com, .net, and .org registries are hereby approved by the DOC in substitution for the Registry Agreement between ICANN and Network Solutions, Inc., effective date November 10, 1999. ICANN will not enter into any material amendment of, or substitution for, said agreements, nor will said agreements be assigned by ICANN, without prior approval of the DOC." ====== AM is 0 NZ is 1 ....but NZ is not open like AM so some people want OZ and AN.......AN...OZ NET begins with N so it would go under NZ or under AN....some want it under AN...not under OZ RIPE.NET.AN RIPE.NET.NZ In the end, the software finds the .NET TLD servers and therefore RIPE.NET... ....so .NET is in Switzerland.... http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/ ...with AM and FM (NZ)....you still have 0:82 and 1:82 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space RIPE seems to think it has 0 and 1 (AM and FM)... ----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" To: ; Cc: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:53 AM Subject: [lir-wg] New IPv4 blcok allocated to RIPE NCC > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 82.0.0.0/8 from the > IANA in November 2002. We will begin allocating from this range > in the near future. > > 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: > > > > Kind regards, > > -- > leo vegoda > RIPE NCC > Registration Services From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 16:30:31 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:30:31 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE is 0:1 .NET ? References: <539500AAE31E4B4CBDDB67AED88D5833049E0B@exchange.keyworld.net> Message-ID: <069201c29629$ec1b8fd0$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-gnr-whois-26nov02.htm http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=NAME&submit=Submit Analysis : Top Level Domain NAME exists. NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11 VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. NAME. 2D IN NS NS.ICANN.ORG. NAME. 2D IN NS NS.RIPE.NET. ====== http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ?:? .NAME ==== From peter.juul at uni-c.dk Wed Nov 27 10:03:45 2002 From: peter.juul at uni-c.dk (Peter B. Juul) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:03:45 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN In-Reply-To: <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:41:18PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > The U.S. Department of Commerce has indicated that it wants ICANN to be well-funded. > The market value for each /8 is about $168,000,000 per year. What "market value"? A market value is set by figuring out at which cost the market will still buy enough of an item to turn maximum profit. There _is_ no /8 market. There are 256 /8's in the world and they are not for sale. At least that's what I've been told for years and have told my customers again and again: IP addresses are not for sale, but you can borrow the amount of addresses you realistically need. If /8's are considered an item to buy and sell both ICANN and the RIRs have failed doing what they are supposed to do. Peter B. Juul, Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) From beri at eurorings.net Wed Nov 27 13:50:32 2002 From: beri at eurorings.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:50:32 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] Stop arguing with J*m! In-Reply-To: <000b01c2960e$7c2d5750$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> And now the good part about his IPv8 and IPv16 delusion. >> (Yep nicely pasted from ietf lists which he also spammed and >> to which he doesn't have an answer as it undermines it all ;) Jeroen and others, In order to save our mailing lists, please STOP any discussion with this guy. IPv8 and IPv16 are myths, like "C+@" was (an older Jim's "invention", in the time he used to flood C++ related newsgroups). Answering Jim only encourages him to send more and more clueless lists of URL's. Hans Peter, you still around? Most people asked for removal of Jim from this mailing list. So, since there is a de facto consensus on this issue can you, as a chair, ask RIPE NCC to act? Regards, Beri From mjrobinson at genuity.net Wed Nov 27 14:40:04 2002 From: mjrobinson at genuity.net (Matthew Robinson) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:40:04 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:29:52 GMT." <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: Much as I hate to see censorship of the RIPE lists I do feel that Jim has yet to bring anything useful to the community. He seems to answer questions with questions. The random postings of links with no context/explanation with them are really starting to get my back up (a tricky thing to do). Perhaps Jim could be asked to place a little more thought and content to his posts so that we could perhaps take his ideas forward rather than just being annoyed with them? Kind regards Matthew > As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally > ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings > subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. > > Regards, > Neil. > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 16:38:53 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:38:53 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> Message-ID: <06a401c2962b$17748eb0$cdba2543@repligate> From: "Peter B. Juul" "There _is_ no /8 market. There are 256 /8's in the world and they are not for sale. At least that's what I've been told for years...." ==== told by whom ?...those leasing them ?...and sub-leasing parts of them ? If you set the AM/FM bit to 0 there are 256...set it to 1 and you have another 256... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ...when TOS=0 Set TOS not equal to 0x00,0x*0,0x0* and you have 16 times that many... http://www.NetFilter.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter B. Juul" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:41:18PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > The U.S. Department of Commerce has indicated that it wants ICANN to be well-funded. > > The market value for each /8 is about $168,000,000 per year. > > What "market value"? > > A market value is set by figuring out at which cost the market will still > buy enough of an item to turn maximum profit. > > There _is_ no /8 market. There are 256 /8's in the world and they are not > for sale. At least that's what I've been told for years and have told my > customers again and again: IP addresses are not for sale, but you can borrow > the amount of addresses you realistically need. > > If /8's are considered an item to buy and sell both ICANN and the RIRs have > failed doing what they are supposed to do. > > Peter B. Juul, > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 16:48:22 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:48:22 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> Message-ID: <06b001c2962c$6aeed680$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter B. Juul" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:41:18PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > The U.S. Department of Commerce has indicated that it wants ICANN to be well-funded. > > The market value for each /8 is about $168,000,000 per year. > > What "market value"? > > A market value is set by figuring out at which cost the market will still > buy enough of an item to turn maximum profit. > The Real Estate "market" is very well understood.... If an apartment rents for $15 per month, that is $180 per year with $15 (one month) going to the broker who leases it... http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/staticip/upgrade/ Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! ==== A /8 is equivalent to 16,777,216 apartments (cyber hotels)... At $15 per month, an ISP has a monthly revenue of $251,658,240 and $3,019,898,880 per year. One month to "the broker" would be $251,658,240. From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Nov 27 16:52:18 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:52:18 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> <06b001c2962c$6aeed680$cdba2543@repligate> Message-ID: <017001c2962c$f72cf000$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > A /8 is equivalent to 16,777,216 apartments (cyber hotels)... > At $15 per month, an ISP has a monthly revenue of $251,658,240 and $3,019,898,880 per year. > > One month to "the broker" would be $251,658,240. Jim, you have even lower an understanding of economics, esp WRT to IP addressing, than I was accused of earlier. Please stop this rubbish for all our sakes. Peter From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 16:55:10 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:10 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> Message-ID: <06c201c2962d$5e1b3010$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter B. Juul" > > If /8's are considered an item to buy and sell both ICANN and the RIRs have > failed doing what they are supposed to do. > Leasing used to be the operative word....now "licensing" is used to confuse people and allow the lawyers to handle it... http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html "On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of money transfer is 18 November 2002." From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 16:58:48 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:58:48 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847553490E2@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> <043201c295c6$d8993e20$cdba2543@repligate> <20021127090345.GA25629@uni-c.dk> <06b001c2962c$6aeed680$cdba2543@repligate> <017001c2962c$f72cf000$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <06d401c2962d$dfbc75c0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" > > A /8 is equivalent to 16,777,216 apartments (cyber hotels)... > > At $15 per month, an ISP has a monthly revenue of $251,658,240 and > $3,019,898,880 per year. > > > > One month to "the broker" would be $251,658,240. > > Jim, you have even lower an understanding of economics, esp WRT to IP > addressing, than I was accused of earlier. > Can you enlighten everyone with your "understanding of economics" ? Are AM economics different from FM economics....? ...Quality costs money....many people are willing to pay for higher quality... From ripe-lir-wg at chriss.net Wed Nov 27 17:12:39 2002 From: ripe-lir-wg at chriss.net (Christopher Sharp) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:12:39 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20021127143213.V15927@Space.Net> References: <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> <20021127143213.V15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <03o9uu8uif89tjtsb8btv0tlqruo01jeem@4ax.com> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:32:13 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: >> As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally >> ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings >> subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. > >I have for a long time argued for "the RIPE lists have to be *open*", but >I want to second Neil's request now. Jim Fleming is not listening, and just >disturbing the open processes. As a long-term lurker and occasional contributor I would like to add my voice to those of Neil and Gert. Jim does not appear to have any interest in following the work of or contributing to the LIR-WG. Instead it seems to have become his personal soapbox through which he spams us all with his inexplicable, incomprehensible and apparently off-topic comments. If he were trying to sell "validated direct marketing email lists" I'm sure he would have been removed by now. Do RIPE find his contributions to date any more valuable to the LIR-WG? C. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 17:17:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:17:16 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] Again...Simple Question...What does RIPE pay ICANN per year for /8s ? Message-ID: <06ea01c29630$741476d0$cdba2543@repligate> Again...Simple Question...What does RIPE pay ICANN per year for /8s ? $0 ? $1 ? $1,000 ? $100,000 ? $100,000,000 ? $200,000,000 ? ...there is an old joke about knowing who you are...now the price just has to be worked out... From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Nov 27 17:31:34 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:31:34 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] GM 2002 (and older) documents In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021127111402.01f04da0@localhost> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021127173035.03192640@localhost.ripe.net> At 11:35 AM 11/27/2002, Axel Pawlik wrote: >To complete the list, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/alltitle.html >contains all planning documents from 1995 on >(ripe-125). Actually from 1991 on, the first one is ripe-35. Daniel From randy at psg.com Wed Nov 27 17:46:05 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:46:05 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] flemming Message-ID: long experience suggests o do not reply to the idiot. do not feed trolls, they only puke it up in public o formally request his posting, not subscription, privileges be revoked anything else amplifies the problem randy From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 17:55:41 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:55:41 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ARIN Election Results Message-ID: <073401c29635$d4630f10$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.arin.net/announcements/11152002.html John M. Brown 17 David Conrad 53 Stephen Stuart 31 Bill Woodcock 51 ==== Total Votes Cast 152 On Friday, November 15, 2002, the Advisory Council appointed Lea Roberts and Stacy Taylor as Advisory Council members to fill the vacancies created by the resignations of lyric apted and John Brown. From john at chagres.net Wed Nov 27 18:00:47 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:00:47 -0700 Subject: formal request to revoke posting privs. aka, WG Chair MIA ?? RE: [lir-wg] flemming In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c29636$88bcf340$7d7ba8c0@laptoy> This was done the the RIPE, and their statement was that the WG Chair has to make the request. which seems like a reasonable thing on RIPE's part. Several regular posters to this list have echoed the desire to see Mr. Flemings posting privs revoked. Several have called on the WG Chair to do so. It seems the WG is MIA and not responding........ > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:46 AM > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [lir-wg] flemming > > > long experience suggests > > o do not reply to the idiot. do not feed trolls, they only puke it > up in public > > o formally request his posting, not subscription, > privileges be revoked > > anything else amplifies the problem > > randy > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 18:08:23 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:08:23 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] AM /8 Transfers Message-ID: <076001c29637$987d2060$cdba2543@repligate> http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/ A detailed list of which networks will be transfered, and to which RIR, will be posted before each /8 is transfered. A full schedule for each network will also be published for each /8. ==== Launching a new TLD with the first letter from N to Z ? http://www.NET.nz From john.murray at intechnology.co.uk Wed Nov 27 18:16:15 2002 From: john.murray at intechnology.co.uk (Murray, John) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:16:15 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN Message-ID: <59121B7AF683D4119B5600508BF3A95302F9F3C8@lisa.intechnology.co.uk> It is true that 'on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog', or a broken automaton. Reading this thread I don't think 'Jim' would pass the Turing test. Regards John ________________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the CitC Virus Scanning Service powered by SkyLabs. For further information visit http://www.citc.it From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 27 18:20:28 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:20:28 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN References: <59121B7AF683D4119B5600508BF3A95302F9F3C8@lisa.intechnology.co.uk> Message-ID: <077801c29639$489805e0$cdba2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Murray, John" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re:[lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN > It is true that 'on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog', or a broken > automaton. > http://www.runabot.com/infigon/ From pim at bit.nl Wed Nov 27 23:27:02 2002 From: pim at bit.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:27:02 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> References: <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20021127222702.GB4655@linux.bit.nl> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: | As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally | ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings | subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. I would like to take this opportunity to voice my strong doubts on the contributions to the RIPE community of Fleming. In the 6BONE community, we have seen a high amount of noise a year or so ago, and particularly the IPv8/IPv16 and senseless URL paste actions lead me to believe that there can be no good from him being able to post to the RIPE fora. I'd like to suggest revoking Jim's posting privileges. groet, Pim -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________ From keith.talent at eudoramail.com Wed Nov 27 23:34:52 2002 From: keith.talent at eudoramail.com (Keith Talent) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:34:52 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE Payments to ICANN Message-ID: To LIR-WG Chair, Let's can the spam. --- ********************************* Keith Talent Snr Sys Admin MSCE DART Problem? What problem? ********************************* On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:58:48 Jim Fleming wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Galbavy" >> > A /8 is equivalent to 16,777,216 apartments (cyber hotels)... >> > At $15 per month, an ISP has a monthly revenue of $251,658,240 and >> $3,019,898,880 per year. >> > >> > One month to "the broker" would be $251,658,240. >> >> Jim, you have even lower an understanding of economics, esp WRT to IP >> addressing, than I was accused of earlier. >> > >Can you enlighten everyone with your "understanding of economics" ? > >Are AM economics different from FM economics....? >...Quality costs money....many people are willing to pay for higher quality... > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From pm at zetnet.net Wed Nov 27 16:56:16 2002 From: pm at zetnet.net (Paul Martin) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:56:16 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Do not feed the troll. In-Reply-To: References: <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20021127155615.GE24038@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:40:04PM +0000, Matthew Robinson wrote: > Perhaps Jim could be asked to place a little more thought and content to his > posts so that we could perhaps take his ideas forward rather than just being > annoyed with them? Very diplomatically put. I have taken the time to read his proposals. Having done that, I added the following to my .procmailrc: :0: * ^From:.*JimFleming at ameritech.net /dev/null -- Paul Martin From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Nov 28 11:26:12 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:26:12 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Warning Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021128111641.02275f58@localhost> Jim, based on your track record on this and other lists, I am warning you that we will ban you from RIPE related mailing lists, if you continue to spam the list with off topic and unconstructive postings. regards, Axel Pawlik From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Nov 28 11:41:09 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:41:09 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021125153146.GB3446@mail.kalnieciai.lt> Message-ID: Could we also get RIPE to give out a SLA I would be all for it...:) - kurtis - On m?ndag, nov 25, 2002, at 16:31 Europe/Stockholm, Andrius Kasparavicius wrote: > Maybe ripe customers should pay per service, not per membership > status. For every > IP allocation(depends on size, work needed), for every ASn, and oth.? > > Andrius > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: >>> I am equally concerned of the rise in fees (although I have been >>> aware it >>> was coming) which I don't see as bringing me anything more value. >>> However, >>> other than mentioning it on the survey that recently took place, I >>> haven't >>> had the time to get involved in more detail with RIPE. It looks like >>> I >>> will have to in future. >> >> For those of us (I am sure it is not just me) supporting legacy >> networks, is >> there any value in pursueing 'merging' LIRs, or does this process >> have a >> detrimental effect on allocations/assignments already made ? Again, I >> have >> not had the time to keep up with the latest documents re merges and >> acquisitions and RIPE. >> >> This may be a cost saving for those who are paying almost completely >> out of >> our own pockets. >> >> Peter >> From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Nov 28 11:46:38 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:46:38 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021125161629.0214dfe8@localhost> Message-ID: > Alex, > Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less > influx of new members over the course of the last twelve > months than forecast, also we have lost member due to > closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC > will have a sizeable deficit this year. > I have not read the plans for next year so my apologies if this is stated in there, but I was curious at to what cost cutting measures have been taken at RIPE NCC? In the rest of the business we are by now pretty used to that... I hope that no one takes this as an offense, but I am just trying to understand better how RIPE NCC works. During this autumn I have had my first experience at establishing a LIR with RIPE and trying to work RIPE. It has been quite interesting and I have long been thinking of putting this as a presentation at the next RIPE meeting but I am not sure this would be useful or fill a purpose. Others have suggested I should wait for the outcome of the survey. - kurtis - From tbb at ines.ro Thu Nov 28 12:03:25 2002 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: 28 Nov 2002 13:03:25 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Do we love Jim Fleming ? I don't... Message-ID: <1038481405.1486.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> ... so i made a poll. let's all vote him out of this list. i think that's the way things are done at RIPE... by consensus... so let's vote, and get Jim out of this list. PLEASE. -- Tiberiu Ungureanu Network Engineer iNES Internet Public GnuPG Key at http://www.ines.ro/public_keys/tbb.gpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tbb at ines.ro Thu Nov 28 12:09:47 2002 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: 28 Nov 2002 13:09:47 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Do we love Jim Fleming ? I don't... Message-ID: <1038481787.932.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 13:03, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > ... so i made a poll. let's all vote him out of this list. i am stupid :) forgot to send url: http://www.bridge-club.ro/poll/index.php -- Tiberiu Ungureanu Network Engineer iNES Internet Public GnuPG Key at http://www.ines.ro/public_keys/tbb.gpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From webmaster at ripe.net Thu Nov 28 12:44:42 2002 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC WebMaster) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:44:42 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New draft document available Message-ID: <200211281144.gASBigZl027085@birch.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, A new draft document is available from the RIPE Document Store. "DRAFT: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations & Assignments" is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/experimental-resources.html Comments on this draft document will be accepted until 12 December 2002. After incorporating any suggested changes to the document, the final document will be published as a RIPE Document. All comments and suggestions should be sent to . Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Webmaster From hpholen at tiscali.no Thu Nov 28 22:17:10 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:17:10 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Message-ID: <017701c29723$83fcaf60$1565ead5@no.tiscali.com> I think that would be an excellent idea. -hph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Smith" To: Cc: "Axel Pawlik" Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. | Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual | general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or | September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to | make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way | more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be | able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the | discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed | and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. | | ? | | philip | -- | | At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: | > The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible | > on the web server: | > | > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html | > | > It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim | > resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. | > | > And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In | > particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that | > it states, i.a., | > | > | > | > "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions | > proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the | > association." | > | > | > "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions | > concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related | > resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above." | > | > | > This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by | > clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front | > of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy. | > | > Reality check, please! | > | > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, | > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. | > | > Regards, | > Wilfried. | | From pfs at cisco.com Fri Nov 29 01:39:08 2002 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:39:08 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? In-Reply-To: <017701c29723$83fcaf60$1565ead5@no.tiscali.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021129103600.05714ae8@localhost> Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to consider, or what? philip -- At 22:17 28/11/2002 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >I think that would be an excellent idea. > >-hph > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Philip Smith" >To: >Cc: "Axel Pawlik" >Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM >Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. > > >| Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual >| general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or >| September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to >| make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way >| more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be >| able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the >| discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed >| and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. >| >| ? >| >| philip >| -- From ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm Fri Nov 29 05:09:44 2002 From: ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 06:09:44 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] JF-spam In-Reply-To: <20021127143213.V15927@Space.Net> References: <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom>; from neil@COLT.NET on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0000 <000c01c29616$4c22ef40$210d640a@unfix.org> <000001c29619$113267a0$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20021129040949.4D8131A316@tikka.axu.tm> Hello, Quote from Neil J. McRae: } > As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally } > ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings } > subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. Quote from Gert Doering: } I have for a long time argued for "the RIPE lists have to be *open*", } but I want to second Neil's request now. Jim Fleming is not listening, } and just disturbing the open processes. I already privately suggested this to Hans, but I thought I might as well suggest it publicly: The RIPE lists already use some sort of a spam assassin to keep clean. Instead of trying to ban the said entity from the list, the phrases "ipv8" and "ipv16" should be added to the list of definitive spam words in the spam filter. They are not relevant with what RIPE is meant to oversee the same way sex, drugs and rock'n'roll aren't. That way, if the said entity ever wants to make a worth-while contribution nothing will prevent it, and our high goals of openness can still be met. -- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Fri Nov 29 10:00:02 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:00:02 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021129103600.05714ae8@localhost> References: <017701c29723$83fcaf60$1565ead5@no.tiscali.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021129095748.020e6ad8@localhost> At 29 11 2002 10:39 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: >Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC >board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG >to consider, or what? This is a membership issue, and will have to be decided by the board. It is actually on the board's list of items to examine for possible change. Input from the lir-wg list is of course very welcome. regards, Axel From k13 at nikhef.nl Fri Nov 29 10:03:19 2002 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:03:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021129103600.05714ae8@localhost> Message-ID: Phil, the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board. Regards, Rob On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Philip Smith wrote: > Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC > board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to > consider, or what? > > philip > -- > > At 22:17 28/11/2002 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >I think that would be an excellent idea. > > > >-hph > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Philip Smith" > >To: > >Cc: "Axel Pawlik" > >Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM > >Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. > > > > > >| Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual > >| general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or > >| September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to > >| make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way > >| more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be > >| able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the > >| discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed > >| and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. > >| > >| ? > >| > >| philip > >| -- > > From beri at eurorings.net Thu Nov 28 13:53:26 2002 From: beri at eurorings.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:53:26 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >> It has been quite interesting and I have long been thinking of putting >> this as a presentation at the next RIPE meeting but I am not sure this >> would be useful or fill a purpose. Others have suggested I should wait >> for the outcome of the survey. Well, expensive consulting agencies (like KPMG) produce nice surveys, but stats and numbers cannot replace live experience. So, I'd say let's hear it. ;-) Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior IP Specialist -------- ----- KPN Eurorings B.V. - IP Engineering/NOC/Support ----- ---- Telecomplein 5, 2516 CK Den Haag, NL ---- ----- Email: beri at eurorings.net <=> beri at EU.net ---- From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Fri Nov 29 11:13:24 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:13:24 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? References: Message-ID: <004301c29790$82a6ced0$10bc10ac@SONY> > the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a > matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to > bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board. Will one or more of the NCC board members reading this pleaae consider this request as a formal request for consideration at the earliest opportunity ? Please respond to the list if you will do so. Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating with our own board members ? (Anyone noticed I hate this FAKE formalism and pointeless bureaucracy ?) Peter From john at chagres.net Fri Nov 29 11:47:28 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:47:28 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] JF-spam In-Reply-To: <20021129040949.4D8131A316@tikka.axu.tm> Message-ID: <000d01c29794$b6e2dc30$7d7ba8c0@laptoy> problem with this idea is that JF doesn't always use those terms in his other non-relavant emails. JF simply is abusing the entire process and should have his posting privs revoked completely. > -----Original Message----- > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Aleksi Suhonen > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 9:10 PM > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] JF-spam > > > > Hello, > > Quote from Neil J. McRae: > } > As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally > } > ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings > } > subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. > > Quote from Gert Doering: > } I have for a long time argued for "the RIPE lists have to > be *open*", } but I want to second Neil's request now. Jim > Fleming is not listening, } and just disturbing the open processes. > > I already privately suggested this to Hans, but I thought I > might as well suggest it publicly: > > The RIPE lists already use some sort of a spam assassin to > keep clean. Instead of trying to ban the said entity from the > list, the phrases "ipv8" and "ipv16" should be added to the > list of definitive spam words in the spam filter. They are > not relevant with what RIPE is meant to oversee the same way > sex, drugs and rock'n'roll aren't. > > That way, if the said entity ever wants to make a worth-while > contribution nothing will prevent it, and our high goals of > openness can still be met. > > -- > Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy > From nigel at packetexchange.net Fri Nov 29 14:37:55 2002 From: nigel at packetexchange.net (Nigel Titley) Date: 29 Nov 2002 13:37:55 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? In-Reply-To: <004301c29790$82a6ced0$10bc10ac@SONY> References: <004301c29790$82a6ced0$10bc10ac@SONY> Message-ID: <1038577075.11413.34.camel@magrat> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 10:13, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a > > matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to > > bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board. > > Will one or more of the NCC board members reading this pleaae consider this > request as a formal request for consideration at the earliest opportunity ? > > Please respond to the list if you will do so. > > Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating > with our own board members ? > > (Anyone noticed I hate this FAKE formalism and pointeless bureaucracy ?) Particularly as I (for one) have been raising this at Board meetings for the past 3 years. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nigel at packetexchange.net Fri Nov 29 14:40:15 2002 From: nigel at packetexchange.net (Nigel Titley) Date: 29 Nov 2002 13:40:15 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] JF-spam In-Reply-To: <000d01c29794$b6e2dc30$7d7ba8c0@laptoy> References: <000d01c29794$b6e2dc30$7d7ba8c0@laptoy> Message-ID: <1038577216.11413.36.camel@magrat> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 10:47, John M. Brown wrote: > problem with this idea is that JF doesn't always use those > terms in his other non-relavant emails. JF simply is abusing > the entire process and should have his posting privs revoked > completely. Has anyone taken the step of talking to his bosses at Ameritech? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lir-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin at ripe.net] On > > Behalf Of Aleksi Suhonen > > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 9:10 PM > > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] JF-spam > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > Quote from Neil J. McRae: > > } > As a member of the RIPE community I'd like to formally > > } > ask the chairpeople of the LIR-WG to remove Jim Flemings > > } > subscription to this list [and anyother RIPE lists]. > > > > Quote from Gert Doering: > > } I have for a long time argued for "the RIPE lists have to > > be *open*", } but I want to second Neil's request now. Jim > > Fleming is not listening, } and just disturbing the open processes. > > > > I already privately suggested this to Hans, but I thought I > > might as well suggest it publicly: > > > > The RIPE lists already use some sort of a spam assassin to > > keep clean. Instead of trying to ban the said entity from the > > list, the phrases "ipv8" and "ipv16" should be added to the > > list of definitive spam words in the spam filter. They are > > not relevant with what RIPE is meant to oversee the same way > > sex, drugs and rock'n'roll aren't. > > > > That way, if the said entity ever wants to make a worth-while > > contribution nothing will prevent it, and our high goals of > > openness can still be met. > > > > -- > > Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jan.boucek at hq.iol.cz Fri Nov 29 15:29:20 2002 From: jan.boucek at hq.iol.cz (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Bou=E8ek_Jan?=) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:29:20 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] UnSubscribing LIR workgroup Message-ID: <76850DF4238D86478FE009F89AD7CBA06D9880@SRV-VS-MAIL2.imaginet> Hello, I would like to unsubscribe from LIR workgroup and I didn't find any form in RIPE web. Reason is changing mailbox. New mailbox is boucek at quick.cz. Thanks in advance. Jan Boucek CZ.CZNET From mally at ripe.net Fri Nov 29 15:38:15 2002 From: mally at ripe.net (Mally Mclane) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:38:15 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] UnSubscribing LIR workgroup In-Reply-To: <76850DF4238D86478FE009F89AD7CBA06D9880@SRV-VS-MAIL2.imaginet> Message-ID: Hi Jan, > I would like to unsubscribe from LIR workgroup and I didn't find any form in > RIPE web. > Reason is changing mailbox. New mailbox is boucek at quick.cz. > Thanks in advance. > Jan Boucek > CZ.CZNET If it is a simple change of address for the lir-wg at ripe.net mailing list, you can do this via our web interface: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/ Should you encounter problems with this, please contact . If it requires a change in your contact details for your registry, please contact . Other RIPE NCC mailboxes can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/contact.html Regards, Mally Mclane RIPE NCC - Operations From hph at online.no Sat Nov 30 11:24:25 2002 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:24:25 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? Message-ID: <3DE8AB56@epostleser.online.no> >===== Original Message From Philip Smith ===== >Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC >board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to >consider, or what? You should talk to the RIPE NCC Assoication Board members. I guess it is usualy the board of an association who deceides the time and place for the General Assembly. As this is not an addressing policy issue I don't think the lir-wg could make a policy on this. Looking at the charter: The LIR Working Group - the open forum where RIPE policy is made - deals with issues that concern Local Internet Registries. For example, procedures are discussed in this working group. It may fall under "deals with issues that concern Local Internet Registries" so I guess it could be discussed on the lir-wg list. -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Sat Nov 30 20:01:57 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:01:57 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC GM during RIPE meetings? References: <004301c29790$82a6ced0$10bc10ac@SONY> Message-ID: <004c01c298a2$f516a0e0$1565ead5@no.tiscali.com> | Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating | with our own board members ? http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/exec-board.html Kees Neggers J?nos Zsak? Frode Greisen Manfredo Miserocchi Daniele Bovio CHAIRMAN TREASURER ICANN LIASON Member without Portfolio SECRETARY I dont think any formalism is particulary needed, just send them an email, or grab them at the next RIPE meeting. -hph From leo at ripe.net Wed Nov 27 10:53:32 2002 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:53:32 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] [apops]New IPv4 blcok allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <20021127095332.GA27059@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 82.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in November 2002. We will begin allocating from this range in the near future. 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: Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services _______________________________________________ apops mailing list apops at lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Nov 28 14:13:41 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:13:41 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <019101c29499$3b914b00$e75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <36D4420A-02D3-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> Ok, I should not be posting while catching up sequentially on my backlog....I guess I will find the answer in a few mails... - kurtis - On m?ndag, nov 25, 2002, at 16:42 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Axel, > >> Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less >> influx of new members over the course of the last twelve >> months than forecast, also we have lost member due to >> closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC >> will have a sizeable deficit this year. >> > > If you have less members, and less new members, then > surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE > being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus > on core activities? > > Neil. > From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Nov 28 17:23:16 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:23:16 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021126113831.Q15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: > I don't think this is necessary. From my experience, voicing things on > the lir-wg mailing list actually *does* have an effect - but it has to > be somewhat popular. There was one voice (Stephen Burley) complaining > about "money wasted on useless projects", but he did not get any > support > from anyone else, while a number of people voiced "we think that these > things are indeed useful!", so nothing changed. Speaking of.... I personally do feel that quite a lot of the "special projects" that RIPE does is essential. However, I think that providing timely and adequate registration services is more urgent. RIPE NCC is increasing the fees, loosing customers and still not IMHO doing a good job. I would be more than happy to pay 50% more if that would give me better registration services. I am not convinced that is the case. For at least a year we have been hearing that this would improve. We are given statistics this is the case. As a new LIR I must say that if this is the improvement, I am glad I wasn't a registry before.... > > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss The burst of the dot.com bubble is no news. It was there a year ago. Businesses adopted and cut back to cope with it. Some did better, some did worse. RIPE NCC seems to belong in the later category. If this would have been a Ltd, the share holders would be asking if the management and accountants was a sleep. > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure > that > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a > catastrophe - Agreed. > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - > which > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. Agreed - but! We and the NCC need to realize that money is not free flowing. Raising the fees might be ok to solve a urgent problem of solvency but they also need to point at what they have done to reduce cost and regain financial control. Just like any other company have to do to their shareholders. If we loose even more new LIRs next year, do we just continue to raise? Where is the pain level? > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a > non-commercial > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is > it > necessary to be a LIR?") > It''s not that simple. The RIRs have defacto monopolies. There is nowhere else to go. And I am not arguing it should be. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Nov 28 17:26:59 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:26:59 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> Message-ID: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual > general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, > April, or September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their > membership having to make a second trip for a half day or one day > meeting. At least that way more LIRs than those who currently can > attend the General Meeting will be able to participate, and maybe give > more useful feedback to the discussions. Especially now with the > Internet economy somewhat depressed and travel pretty hard to justify > for most folks. > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. - kurtis -