From contact at ripe.net Wed Aug 6 16:00:45 2003 From: contact at ripe.net (Membership Liaison Officer) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:00:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR statistics on IPv6 allocations Message-ID: <200308061400.h76E0j3k029142@birch.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Recently, interest has been expressed for having RIR Statistics published by the RIPE NCC include IPv6 allocation data. This data is now published daily under the following directory: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/new/ Please note that the format of the file is subject to change, as there are ongoing discussions on a common format between the four RIRs. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot -------------------------------------------------- Membership Liaison Officer Tel +31 20 535 4444 http://www.ripe.net/ Fax +31 20 535 4445 RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) P.O. Box 10096, 1001 EB Amsterdam, The Netherlands -------------------------------------------------- See you at the RIPE 46 Meeting 1-5 September, 2003, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/index.html From Bovio at aol.com Tue Aug 12 10:21:26 2003 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:21:26 EDT Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... Message-ID: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net writes: > I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE > NCC. > > I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the > bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This > is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals > like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. > Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and > more often I do not agree with *how* things are done. > > What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of > all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. > I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. > I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the > differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. > Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or > improvements does not help. > I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.norris at heanet.ie Tue Aug 12 10:27:34 2003 From: mike.norris at heanet.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:27:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE N CC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... Message-ID: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608916@exchange.heanet.ie> I agree fully with you, Daniele. Mike Norris -----Original Message----- From: ncc-services-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-services-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Bovio at aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:21 AM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; ncc-services-wg at ripe.net Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net writes: I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE NCC. I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and more often I do not agree with *how* things are done. What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or improvements does not help. I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3099 bytes Desc: not available URL: From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 11:19:44 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:19:44 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> Message-ID: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Bovio at aol.com wrote: > I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I > strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the > recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and > positively react to constructive criticism. > > There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how > flaming on mailing lists helps. > > Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the > ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. OK, let me try to be clear and rational about my primary objections to the way that RIPE works now: 1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation. 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ? 3. The registry should be run efficiently, not just "quickly". From the reports that others have sent me off-list in the past, my suspicions are strong that there are basically too many staff at RIPE. We're back to the industrial rationalisation issues of the 80's for deities sake... Anyone in the UK remember the stories about Leyland workers on night shift being caught sleeping on cots they brough in to work ? I get that feeling about RIPE sometimes. Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ? If it isn't, as I predicate it is, then I get choice and can take my business elsewhere. Going to an "ISP" is not the choice I can make, so don't try that one. rgds, -- Peter From gert at space.net Tue Aug 12 11:36:01 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:36:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100 References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > 1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding > for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that > distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this > practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation. You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us". The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do. [..] > 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of > opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry > services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, > experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. > At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for > others to play with their academic toys. Why ? Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it. [..] > Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry > services in Europe ? If it isn't, as I predicate it is, then I get choice > and can take my business elsewhere. Going to an "ISP" is not the choice I > can make, so don't try that one. It is a natural monopoly in the way that you can't go elsewhere if you want RIPE member services. But then, how else do you want to do hierarchical distribution of a limited resource? On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that you have). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) 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.juul at uni-c.dk Tue Aug 12 11:39:15 2003 From: peter.juul at uni-c.dk (Peter B. Juul) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812093915.GM5476@uni-c.dk> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > 1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding > for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that > distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this > practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation. I agree. When I have to send off forms for allocations and such, I can't remember ever having said "RIPE NCC" instead of "RIPE". To most of us in the business - I think - "RIPE" is a general term for "those guys that will not give us more IP addresses unless we really, really need them." The distinction seems to be some bureaucratic necessity. I'd really rather the geeks ran this world :-) > 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of > opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry > services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, > experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. > At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for > others to play with their academic toys. Why ? To some extend, I agree with your notion. It can be irritating, indeed, to have to pay up for something you don't really see a purpose to. However, it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really be spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious practical implementation (yet)?"-discussion. Whatever non-IRR-stuff RIPE is doing _may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It may also fade away into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay for research into that which will pay my salary in ten years, and the companies that will probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send the bill. > 3. The registry should be run efficiently, not just "quickly". From the > reports that others have sent me off-list in the past, my suspicions are > strong that there are basically too many staff at RIPE. The great big problem with anonymous off-list mails is the fact that they are anonymous. (Not to you, I know, but to the list). If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the lists. > Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry > services in Europe ? Nope. It definitely is. However, such seems basically unavoidable given the fact that we _need_ a central office to distribute IP addresses and AS numbers. Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use now, neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say. Peter B. Juul, Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) From chbm at cprm.net Tue Aug 12 11:49:17 2003 From: chbm at cprm.net (Carlos Morgado) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:49:17 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812094917.GB2024@cprm.net> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for > others to play with their academic toys. Why ? > Cause that's how you came to the point where you have "IPes" and "ASes". -- Carlos Morgado - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer. From sburley at africonnect.com Tue Aug 12 11:50:00 2003 From: sburley at africonnect.com (Stephen Burley) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:50:00 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <20030812093915.GM5476@uni-c.dk> References: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030812104907.00af89a0@195.206.160.253> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-37/presentations/May-17-Task-Force-summary/index.html Remember this? Seems we have come full circle again. From lists at complx.LF.net Tue Aug 12 14:31:20 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:31:20 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812123120.GP83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry > services in Europe ? If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional constituency. So, there *is* competition. Or did I misinterpret that matrix ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 12 16:09:42 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:09:42 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812123120.GP83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: >> Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry >> services in Europe ? > If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different > RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of > them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional > constituency. you're quite correct. in american, i believe that's called a cartel. randy From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 16:29:44 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:29:44 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Gert Doering wrote: > You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us". > > The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and > needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do. Then why do people (in RIPE / RIPC NCC) make a distinction ? >> 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the >> choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, >> provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other >> hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should >> be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes >> and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. >> Why ? > > Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it. Because the system is weighted in such a way that getting a vote proposed, let alone voted on by any real number of people, is difficult to impossible. This is getting recursive. > It is a natural monopoly in the way that you can't go elsewhere if you > want RIPE member services. But then, how else do you want to do > hierarchical distribution of a limited resource? > > On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you > *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that > you have). No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential) competition. RIPE/RIPE-NCC is supposed to be neutral, but is using that neutrality to assist in its own perpetualtion of the things I am complaining about. I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" stuff, but I don't get a choice. Peter Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 16:36:19 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:36:19 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812093915.GM5476@uni-c.dk> Message-ID: <03c001c360df$18788170$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Peter B. Juul wrote: > To some extend, I agree with your notion. It can be irritating, > indeed, to have to pay up for something you don't really see a > purpose to. However, > it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really > be spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious > practical implementation (yet)?"-discussion. Whatever non-IRR-stuff > RIPE is doing _may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It > may also fade away into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay > for research into that which will pay my salary in ten years, and the > companies that will > probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send > the bill. How is the IETF funded ? The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist without me paying for it. In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the collective apathy of a membership. > If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the > lists. I was asked in this instance to not repeat names as one of the people was not available to approve the release of information they collected. I am happy to support people who wish to speak up. > Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that > Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or > want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use > now, neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say. Using this metaphor, RIPE has a monopoly on traffic signs and road numbers. I can build a road, but I cannot join it to the rest of the public road network without their involvement. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 16:39:57 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:39:57 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812094917.GB2024@cprm.net> Message-ID: <03d701c360df$9a5597a0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Carlos Morgado wrote: >> At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay >> for others to play with their academic toys. Why ? > > Cause that's how you came to the point where you have "IPes" and > "ASes". And how was that funded ? Rehtorical question:- I know the answer; I am trying to make the point that I agree with taxes (well spent) but not with non-governmental monopolies overstating their own importance by loading themselves with stuff that should be elsewhere. Peter From lists at complx.LF.net Tue Aug 12 16:42:37 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:42:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812123120.GP83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <20030812144237.GQ83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > >> Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry > >> services in Europe ? > > If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different > > RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of > > them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional > > constituency. > you're quite correct. in american, i believe that's called a cartel. Is this really a cartel ? There are probably different pricing schemes and rules for each RIR ? http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html So, if someone does not like RIPE NCC services, get your IPs and ASes from one of the other RIRs ? Anything that does prohibit this ? Has anyone tried yet ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 16:48:54 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:48:54 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812123120.GP83663@complx.LF.net> <20030812144237.GQ83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <040e01c360e0$da92f230$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Is this really a cartel ? There are probably different pricing > schemes and rules for each RIR ? > > http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html > > So, if someone does not like RIPE NCC services, get your IPs and > ASes from one of the other RIRs ? Anything that does prohibit this ? > Has anyone tried yet ? The problem for many would be establishing billing relationships, references and banking to organisations outside their local territories. Look, it took a very very long time to convince people at RIPE (back in the mid 90's) that in the UK you DID NOT need to be registered with a "local chamber of commerce" to legally trade ... There are also doubts in my mind as to the legality of telling someone to go outside the EU (in terms of data protection and other things) as opposed to allowing someone to do so of their own *free* will. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 16:51:15 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:51:15 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812123120.GP83663@complx.LF.net> <20030812144237.GQ83663@complx.LF.net> <040e01c360e0$da92f230$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <042701c360e1$2e3e9fb0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Peter Galbavy wrote: > The problem for many would be establishing billing relationships, > references and banking to organisations outside their local > territories. ... Apologies to my tone in that last message. You may be able to tell I get frustrated to the point of pulling my own (non existent) hair out with this particular issue. Maybe I am alone and I should go away :) I may just do this anyway - it would be the easiest solution ;-) Peter From peter.juul at uni-c.dk Tue Aug 12 18:56:15 2003 From: peter.juul at uni-c.dk (Peter B. Juul) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:56:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <03c001c360df$18788170$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812165615.GI2447@uni-c.dk> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:36:19PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > How is the IETF funded ? The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist > without me paying for it. Nope. You just pay in less obvious ways. Companies that sponsor their workers' trips to IETF meetings and their time doing IETF stuff grab the money when you buy their products. Which is pretty much what RIPE does, they just don't hide it behind "overhead expenses" as much. > In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded > by academic models In the best of all worlds, yes. However, I am quite certain I am not the only one living in a country in which the government tend to find other uses for money than basic research. > and maybe by corporate sponsorship, that's pretty much what happens now, isn't it? OK, that's not what you meant, but corporate sponsorships rarely go to those that can't point clearly to the general use the results might have. > they should not leach > off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by > taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the > collective apathy of a membership. True. I am not saying that I find everything about the membership-ocraty great. I am just saying that I, for one, don't think research is a bad way to use some of the money we pay. > I was asked in this instance to not repeat names as one of the people was > not available to approve the release of information they collected. I am > happy to support people who wish to speak up. Sure. But FOAF is bad argumentation. Especially on the net. > Using this metaphor, RIPE has a monopoly on traffic signs and road numbers. > I can build a road, but I cannot join it to the rest of the public road > network without their involvement. True. You are however welcome to dig tunnels under their roads. (layer 2) NAh, this is getting silly, let's forget the analogies: Of course (and out of necessity) RIPE has a monopoly on IP space. Anything else is an academic exercise. Peter B. Juul, Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) From gert at space.net Tue Aug 12 20:43:01 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:43:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:29:44PM +0100 References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030812204301.H67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:29:44PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: > > You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us". > > > > The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and > > needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do. > > Then why do people (in RIPE / RIPC NCC) make a distinction ? I don't understand that question. You were complaining that people make this distinction "just to confuse matters" - and I was trying to give a precise definition as for what is what. Especially it's not "RIPE *and* the RIPE NCC are both funded in some convoluted ways". RIPE is NOT (and can't be, by definition). [..] > >> be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes > >> and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. > >> Why ? > > > > Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it. > > Because the system is weighted in such a way that getting a vote proposed, > let alone voted on by any real number of people, is difficult to impossible. I can't agree with that statement. I have been quite successful in changing some of those pieces that annoyed me. [..] > > On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you > > *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that > > you have). > > No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential) > competition. In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something that's harmful for your business in the long run? As far as I understand your situation, getting a PI address block through any other ISP, and announcing that via your AS (that you have already) should solve your needs without causing any competitive problems either. [..] > I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to > move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the > optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for > their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" > stuff, but I don't get a choice. Isn't that exactly what the activity plan is about, which is agreed-upon on a very specific date that was announced *WELL* in advanced, and where every LIR can go and vote for or against? You can even bring proxy votes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From hpholen at tiscali.no Wed Aug 13 01:43:07 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:43:07 -0100 (GMT+1) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <03c001c360df$18788170$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: > How is the IETF funded ? My understanding is that the IETF is funded the same way as the *RIPE* is funded: - meeting participants pay a fee to cover the meeting costs, with some sponsored events added - the IETF chair Harald Alvestrand works for Cisco Systems so I assume Cisco pays for his time (just as the RIPE chair works for NIKHEF who pays for Robs time, just as I work for Tiscali who pays for my time (well if you ask my family they will probably claim I do this out of office hours so its my own time) When it comes to the RIPE NCC of the IETF (just waiting for the flames on that one...) the RFC-editor it is funded by a membership organisation (the Internet Society) > The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist > without me paying for it. You probably do indireclty; if you look at the list of Area directors and WG chairs, and even the working group members spedning time on improving the Internet you probably pay trough some product you use If you dont want to pay the RIPE NCC for the service I (or somebody else for that matter) could probably offer you Internet transit with IP address registration bundled as a service for your customers. > In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded > by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach > off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by > taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the > collective apathy of a membership. I can agree on that principle - there will be an oportuity at the next RIPE meeting - both in the RIPE NCC services wg and in the general meeting to change the direction of the ship. -hph From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 22:14:23 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:14:23 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812204301.H67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <004601c3610e$52ff3800$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Gert Doering wrote: > I don't understand that question. You were complaining that people > make > this distinction "just to confuse matters" - and I was trying to give > a precise definition as for what is what. > > Especially it's not "RIPE *and* the RIPE NCC are both funded in some > convoluted ways". RIPE is NOT (and can't be, by definition). I know it is not an English acronym, but perhaps someone could translate what RIPE stands for ? It is not "the European ISP club" is it ? It is the European IP coordination function (AFAICR). I dislike people pretending that RIPE-NCC membership fees do not fund RIPE activities. Else we would only see costs associated with running a registry in the *RIPE-NCC* annual report. >> Because the system is weighted in such a way that getting a vote >> proposed, let alone voted on by any real number of people, is >> difficult to impossible. > > I can't agree with that statement. > > I have been quite successful in changing some of those pieces that > annoyed me. But that is / was your job ? If you have close to 100% of your working day dedicated to RIPE / regulatory affairs / whatever, then getting involved is easy. People in(/friends with people in) RIPE/RIPE-NCC are basically in control. Most members do not even have anyone who reads this stuff. Hence my comment about apathy. >From reading the docs a few months ago, I need to find 5% of the membership to agree to any proposal I may make to be put before a RIPE annual meeting (for example to propose the RIPE/RIPE-NCC immediately cease all non-registry related activities and to begin a program of rationalisation that reflects the needs of the industry). I have NO communication path to approach this notional 5% as I do not have access to a membership list, and I dislike spamming folks anyway. Not all members are on an open mailing list (AFAIK) - or rather not all those who are in a position to vote on behalf oif their company. Without knowing who are members, and how many are "5%" I cannot try to put forward a democratic proposal of the sort above. On the other hand, the executive board can put forward proposals unconditionally - or have I remembered wrong ? > In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something > that's harmful for your business in the long run? AS is OK - it is for the lifetime of the assignment, except the maintainer object is required for changes and last time I asked, new maintainer objects are only for members. > As far as I understand your situation, getting a PI address block > through > any other ISP, and announcing that via your AS (that you have already) > should solve your needs without causing any competitive problems > either. PI is "wasteful" and not guarenteed (for some value of that word) routeable. PA is owned by the upstream, and also makes most multihoming impossible. I have pre-PI/PA space I can use for my own self, but some of this is not actually just about my specific case. > Isn't that exactly what the activity plan is about, which is > agreed-upon > on a very specific date that was announced *WELL* in advanced, and > where every LIR can go and vote for or against? You can even bring > proxy votes. I oppose the whole concept of having a plan, not the plan. If the sole activity was registry services, there would be no need for a plan. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Aug 12 22:16:18 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:16:18 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> <5.2.1.1.2.20030812160156.00aeffd0@195.206.160.253> Message-ID: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Stephen Burley wrote: > 1.registry services (good and timely) > 2. database repository (and related DB functions) > 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) > 4. RIPE meeting organization I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time. Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 13 07:26:26 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:26:26 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities Message-ID: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> OK, I have had off list support from people who are maybe not quite willing to be seen above the walls (yet). I would like to put a proposal before the annual meeting - which I will NOT be able to attend personally. Is anyone else willing to carry this in my absence ? Let me guess, too late for this year... The core of the proposal is: -- It is proposed that the RIPE-NCC (a) immediately cease all activities not directly required for the management of those registry functions necessary to the continued well being of the Internet in Europe and other related territories, and (b) undertakes a program of rationalisation that reflects the ongoing commercial consolidation of it's membership while maintaining an efficient and adequate level of service. -- I want help with rewording (b) above. It is not quite right. i.e. "feel the pain" instead of "gravy train". rgds, -- Peter Galbavy Knowtion Ltd. uk.kml From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 08:48:41 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:48:41 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Stephen Burley wrote: > > 1.registry services (good and timely) > > 2. database repository (and related DB functions) > > 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) > > 4. RIPE meeting organization > > I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one > organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* > person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time. i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget. > > Peter > Hank Nussbacher From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 09:04:10 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:04:10 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote: > OK, I have had off list support from people who are maybe not quite willing > to be seen above the walls (yet). > > I would like to put a proposal before the annual meeting - which I will NOT > be able to attend personally. Is anyone else willing to carry this in my > absence ? Let me guess, too late for this year... > > The core of the proposal is: > > -- > It is proposed that the RIPE-NCC (a) immediately cease all activities not > directly required for the management of those registry functions necessary > to the continued well being of the Internet in Europe and other related > territories, and (b) undertakes a program of rationalisation that reflects > the ongoing commercial consolidation of it's membership while maintaining an > efficient and adequate level of service. > -- (a) is wrong as well. as much as i agree, ripe ncc has employees that they cant fire tomorrow because we say so. make a plan for 2004/2005, but don't expect my support for *immediate* termination of anything. > > I want help with rewording (b) above. It is not quite right. i.e. "feel the > pain" instead of "gravy train". > > rgds, > -- > Peter Galbavy > Knowtion Ltd. > uk.kml > Hank Nussbacher From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Aug 13 09:29:05 2003 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:29:05 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote: > OK, I have had off list support from people who are maybe not quite willing > to be seen above the walls (yet). > > I would like to put a proposal before the annual meeting - which I will NOT > be able to attend personally. Is anyone else willing to carry this in my > absence ? Let me guess, too late for this year... > > The core of the proposal is: > > -- > It is proposed that the RIPE-NCC (a) immediately cease all activities not > directly required for the management of those registry functions necessary > to the continued well being of the Internet in Europe and other related > territories, "Europe and other related territories" doesnt seem quite right. It should be: "its service region". Debugging BGP data collected across the service region to understand (and take measures later) what is really going on doesnt fit in the "well being"? > and (b) undertakes a program of rationalisation that reflects > the ongoing commercial consolidation of it's membership while maintaining an > efficient and adequate level of service. > -- "ongoing commercial consolidation" equals give always preference to bigger members? > I want help with rewording (b) above. It is not quite right. i.e. "feel the > pain" instead of "gravy train". > > rgds, > -- > Peter Galbavy > Knowtion Ltd. > uk.kml > ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt , CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Aug 13 09:37:07 2003 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:37:07 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > 1.registry services (good and timely) > > > 2. database repository (and related DB functions) > > > 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) > > > 4. RIPE meeting organization > > > > I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one > > organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* > > person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time. > > i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. > if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor > time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, > with no affect on the overall ncc budget. Hello. In the first moment, this proposal would prevent people that doesnt go to training sessions to pay it. This would benefit the people in some smaller/far away countries if the NCC wouldnt have a program all around its service region... I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago? About this topic, i have a positive feeling about the recent extending of training courses to DNS-SEC and RRC by the NCC. > > Peter > > > > Hank Nussbacher Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt , CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" From sburley at africonnect.com Tue Aug 12 17:18:13 2003 From: sburley at africonnect.com (Stephen Burley) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:18:13 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030812160156.00aeffd0@195.206.160.253> >I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to >move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the >optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for >their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" >stuff, but I don't get a choice. This was something i raised years ago prompted mainly by the test traffic white elephant which used registry monies to plod along and then eventually go on a subscription basis, and this something i had no intention of ever using but still the registry i was with paid its money and had no say over how it was used. Something that has been repeated over and over again is that the NCC should be a registry not a research dept for internet trends and toys. There should be 4 main functions 1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization All of which the NCC do well and should be commended, anything else is surplus to requirement there is one other thing the NCC has never done and never fully justified and that is a help desk you can talk to. Other RIR's do it. I think it helps cut away the sterile faceless image and lets you see what you are getting for your money - discuss Stephen Burley Internet Communications Consultant Africonnect From clive at demon.net Wed Aug 13 09:28:40 2003 From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:28:40 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <004601c3610e$52ff3800$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> References: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> <00a501c360b2$de400a90$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812113601.K67740@Space.Net> <03bb01c360de$2cabab00$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20030812204301.H67740@Space.Net> <004601c3610e$52ff3800$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <20030813072840.GA36031@finch-staff-1.thus.net> Peter Galbavy said: > From reading the docs a few months ago, I need to find 5% of the membership > to agree to any proposal I may make to be put before a RIPE annual meeting > I have NO communication path to approach this notional 5% as I do not have > access to a membership list, and I dislike spamming folks anyway. I don't know the relevant laws that RIPE-NCC operates under (Dutch ones, I presume). But if you were looking at the equivalent UK arrangement (a company limited by guarantee) then you are entitled to go to the Registered Office and inspect the Register of Members. You then write down [*] all the names and addresses and send them all a paper letter. I wouldn't be surprised to find there's an equivalent rule. [*] Many companies will help you do this more efficiently, for example by sending a copy of the Register in the post or electronically. But I believe the legal minimum requirement is inspection at the office. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: | *** NOTE CHANGE *** Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 13 09:53:38 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:53:38 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > 1.registry services (good and timely) > > > 2. database repository (and related DB functions) > > > 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) > > > 4. RIPE meeting organization > > I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one > > organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* > > person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time. > i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. > if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor > time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, > with no affect on the overall ncc budget. 3: In some countries, 200EUR do make a difference. Are training courses such a drain on budgets ? Better having people trained and some sort of coherent "qualification" is available than having no level of discussion, because everyone "saves" on that topic. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From CHallam at sdlintl.com Wed Aug 13 09:59:46 2003 From: CHallam at sdlintl.com (Chris Hallam) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:59:46 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Services Message-ID: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE847555E5ECB@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> Stephen Burley wrote: All of which the NCC do well and should be commended, anything else is surplus to requirement there is one other thing the NCC has never done and never fully justified and that is a help desk you can talk to. Other RIR's do it. I think it helps cut away the sterile faceless image and lets you see what you are getting for your money - discuss === I think the inclusion of a telephone help desk service would benefit a lot of members. I imagine it would be difficult to implement due to the number of bilingual staff that would be required. This would therefore require substantial funding which would probably affect member fees. In addition, most of the actual processes would have to remain based on the email system. Even so, if the operational scope was clearly defined it would be useful for help, advice, and a reliable point of contact. Chris ********************************************************************** 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. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 10:56:26 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:56:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105258.00acdd30@max.att.net.il> At 08:37 AM 13-08-03 +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to >pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. >I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges >jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should >this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it >is paying for the training that person got some time ago? > when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your company to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly trained LIR benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some place 1000km away might benefit me. -Hank > > > Peter > > > > > > > Hank Nussbacher > >Regards, > >./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" >-------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt >, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup >FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 > > "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 10:59:45 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:59:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> At 09:53 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. > > if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor > > time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, > > with no affect on the overall ncc budget. > >3: In some countries, 200EUR do make a difference. Are training courses >such a drain on budgets ? Better having people trained and some >sort of coherent "qualification" is available than having no >level of discussion, because everyone "saves" on that topic. I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank >-- >MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to >go ! >LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net >Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 >D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From gert at space.net Wed Aug 13 10:06:15 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:06:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200 References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign > country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace > "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From cramer at dolphins.ch Wed Aug 13 10:15:06 2003 From: cramer at dolphins.ch (Matthias Cramer) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:15:06 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030813101506.729e7613.cramer@dolphins.ch> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:06:15 +0200 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign > > country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace > > "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank > > Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling > (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of > us. Here I have to fully agree with you. Especialy on broken DB entries ... The bigger the LIS the less maintained is the database I think ... On the other hand, you need people capable of handling all the technical equipment and that is not cheap anyway, so a little cost for a training course should not matter either. BTW, as far as I know only the first LIR training (1 or 2 persons) is for free, for the other you have to pay allready, or am I wrong here ? Best regards Matthias -- _;\_ Matthias Cramer / mc322-ripe System & Network Manager /_. \ Dolphins Network Systems AG Phone +41-1-847'45'45 |/ -\ .) Libernstrasse 24 Fax +41-1-847'45'49 -'^`- \; CH-8112 Otelfingen http://www.dolphins.ch/ GnuPG 1024D/2D208250 = DBC6 65B6 7083 1029 781E 3959 B62F DF1C 2D20 8250 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 11:12:35 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:12:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813110938.00af3218@max.att.net.il> At 10:06 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some > foreign > > country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - > replace > > "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank > >Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling >(LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of >us. based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every LIR to send their people. -Hank >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) > >SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 >80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Aug 13 10:24:18 2003 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:24:18 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105258.00acdd30@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 08:37 AM 13-08-03 +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > >I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to > >pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. > >I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges > >jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should > >this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it > >is paying for the training that person got some time ago? > > > > when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your company > to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly trained LIR > benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some place 1000km > away might benefit me. > > -Hank That is pretty much my doubt... it is assumed that each LIR only pays for the training of *its own* staff??? -- i expect to read a YES soon. If a LIR has *one* person during 5 years doing RIPE work, it is expected that this person will attend trainings every year? -- as a recycling process? Shouldnt one LIR get a free registration to a meeting if anybody goes to training during a certain period? -- free registrations are provided to new LIRs, if im not mistaken... Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt , CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Aug 13 10:28:53 2003 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:28:53 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign > > country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace > > "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank > > Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling > (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of > us. Sorry, cannot agree fully with this. I agree with the potential to affect all, but the outcome of "stupid mistakes" should be customers running away from those companies (get the training they are paying or go away!)-- and in some cases they might go knocking on your door... Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt , CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" From gert at space.net Wed Aug 13 10:57:16 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:57:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813110938.00af3218@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +0200 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813110938.00af3218@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling > >(LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of > >us. > > based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe > ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every LIR > to send their people. -Hank One can certainly overdo things... - I think the way it is is a good compromise. People are encouraged to go to the training, and as the training location is moving around, airfare/hotel costs can be kept down. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) 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 Wed Aug 13 12:03:22 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:03:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813110938.00af3218@max.att.net.il> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813110938.00af3218@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813120128.00ac21d8@max.att.net.il> At 10:57 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > >Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling > > >(LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of > > >us. > > > > based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe > > ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every > LIR > > to send their people. -Hank > >One can certainly overdo things... - I think the way it is is a good >compromise. People are encouraged to go to the training, and as the >training location is moving around, airfare/hotel costs can be kept down. i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Hank >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) > >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 Wed Aug 13 12:18:35 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:18:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8@max.att.net.il> At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >Provided of course, that people really want progress, something >which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists. > >It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet >regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" >example for self government :-( > >I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their >behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up >and get out of the way so other people can do so. where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no name calling. -hank >-- >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 hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 12:27:47 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:27:47 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <3276.1060766576@critter.freebsd.dk> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813122339.00b27e50@max.att.net.il> At 11:22 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8 at max.att.net.il>, Hank >Nussbacher > writes: > >At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >>Provided of course, that people really want progress, something > >>which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists. > >> > >>It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet > >>regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" > >>example for self government :-( > >> > >>I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their > >>behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up > >>and get out of the way so other people can do so. > > > >where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments > >for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no > >name calling. > >It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer >than most of you. il.iucc was the 1st paying ripe member and i've been attending meetings off and on from before there was an ncc or even fees: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/meeting1-23/ripe-4.txt -hank >-- >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 leo at ripe.net Wed Aug 13 11:36:33 2003 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:36:33 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813101506.729e7613.cramer@dolphins.ch> References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <20030813075338.GS83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> <20030813100615.X67740@Space.Net> <20030813101506.729e7613.cramer@dolphins.ch> Message-ID: Hi Matthias, Matthias Cramer wrote: [...] >BTW, as far as I know only the first LIR training (1 or 2 persons) is >for free, for the other you >have to pay allready, or am I wrong here ? There are no charges made for any of the training courses we provide. The training service is provided according to the "RIPE NCC Local IR Training Policies" document, which can be found at: We would like to update this document in the near future and welcome input from the membership. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 13 12:08:07 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:08:07 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > Considering the strong interests who are trying to screw over as > many people as they can get away with, and considering to what > extent they have already been able to pervert ICANN, I can certainly > not see the sense in ripping into RIPE to make sure that we have > no organization which will stand up for european interests when the > pirates of DNS comes for our blood next time. Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent. Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on: If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From phk at phk.freebsd.dk Wed Aug 13 11:15:10 2003 From: phk at phk.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:15:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:57:16 +0200." <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> Considering the strong interests who are trying to screw over as many people as they can get away with, and considering to what extent they have already been able to pervert ICANN, I can certainly not see the sense in ripping into RIPE to make sure that we have no organization which will stand up for european interests when the pirates of DNS comes for our blood next time. But considering that this entire thread started out with yet another failure (almost a yearly recurrent thing these days) by the RIPE community to find a way where customers can be offered multi-homing in practical and efficient way, is almost a good argument for the steam-rolling to proceed with no undue delay. While there may not be any perfect solution to multihoming, LIR training or even the general level of RIPE activities, there are actual workable solutions, and I think there are plenty of places where progress could be easily made. Provided of course, that people really want progress, something which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists. It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" example for self government :-( I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up and get out of the way so other people can do so. -- 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 phk at phk.freebsd.dk Wed Aug 13 11:22:56 2003 From: phk at phk.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:22:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:18:35 +0200." <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <3276.1060766576@critter.freebsd.dk> In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8 at max.att.net.il>, Hank Nussbacher writes: >At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>Provided of course, that people really want progress, something >>which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists. >> >>It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet >>regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" >>example for self government :-( >> >>I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their >>behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up >>and get out of the way so other people can do so. > >where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments >for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no >name calling. It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer than most of you. -- 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 mansaxel at sunet.se Wed Aug 13 12:39:06 2003 From: mansaxel at sunet.se (Mans Nilsson) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:39:06 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> References: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <20030813103906.GJ61550@sunet.se> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:08:07PM +0200 Quoting Kurt Jaeger (lists at complx.LF.net): > > If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very > good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations > would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. Indeed -- a swedish government investigation (SOU 2002:60) concluded: "In Europe it is RIPE who hands out IP address space to operators and other network owners. This arrangement has proved to be working, and there is no reason to alter it at the moment." SOU 2002:60, page 377, my (abridged) translation. Please note -- this is the investigation which writes the bill that implements the EU communications directive in Sweden; they have the theorethical power to suggest legislation that in effect forces all IP address allocation to be made by a government authority, per nation-state. I do not think we or the governements want that... -- M?ns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE I wonder if I ought to tell them about my PREVIOUS LIFE as a COMPLETE STRANGER? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 12:58:20 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:58:20 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> Kurt, > Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per > year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for > our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, > but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent. I don't think anyone is against making sure that Europe is represented in the wide scale, but its not what we, and many others orignally signed up for. And its certainly not something that should be forced upon people. We signed up to the registration services. > If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a > very good example of self-gouvernance, many national > government regulations would be in place instead -- and it > would be a big mess. Self governance?! There is no governance - there is apathy and the widening remit that the RIPE has been taking is not acceptable. There needs to be a way to limit / control these activities and also look at what really is value for money for the people who are paying for them. The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to day operations of the RIPE NCC also. Regards, Neil. From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 13:02:41 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:02:41 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <3276.1060766576@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <00bf01c3618a$6a6f8360$f75f4ad4@doom> > It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show > for longer than most of you. And what has that to do with anything? Frankly if you've been involved with this "show" for longer than most of us, I wouldn't be advertising the fact, considering the mess that this "show" is currently in. Regards, Neil. From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 13 13:10:10 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:10:10 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <055701c3618b$765fe3d0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to > have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests > worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very > professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent. Then form an independent lobbying group, and don't use my money for it. Certain organisations - like the RIPE and maybe LINX as a random examples - work as an industry body up until a point where consensus is no longer possible because of size. Then either politics or apathy or both get in the way, and those in control get to stay in control by virtue of being good at maintaining a status quo that is not offensive enough for people to collectively vote against. Perhaps I am suggestion that point is here, now. > Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on: > > If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very > good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations > would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual membership fee rises on a community that has no choice ? Peter From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 13:21:51 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:21:51 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <00cd01c3618d$17d03570$f75f4ad4@doom> Peter, > -- > It is proposed that the RIPE-NCC (a) immediately cease all > activities not directly required for the management of those > registry functions necessary to the continued well being of > the Internet in Europe and other related territories, and (b) > undertakes a program of rationalisation that reflects the > ongoing commercial consolidation of it's membership while > maintaining an efficient and adequate level of service. > -- > > I want help with rewording (b) above. It is not quite right. > i.e. "feel the pain" instead of "gravy train". Agreed on the "spirit" of what you have to say. I also think that there would need to a mention of something that states that this should be done within the limits of the law in Holland. Perhaps also consider immediate to by end of 2003 to give time to hand over some projects to other bodies/parties that might be interested in them. I think the most disappointing aspect of this situation is that the RIPE NCC management team and board aren't leading this discussion and that they themselves have not yet realised that the situation as it stands is not fair to those members who only want registration services. Regards, Neil. From mark at brett.com Wed Aug 13 13:50:02 2003 From: mark at brett.com (Mark Brett) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:50:02 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] E-mail list removeal Message-ID: Please remove mark at brett.com from allo f your lists asap. Thanks. Mark Mark Brett Tel: 0208 529 8614 Mobile: 07720 101 733 PO Box 6733. Chingford, London. E4 8UD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 13 13:44:08 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:44:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> References: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > > Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per > > year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for > > our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, > > but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent. > I don't think anyone is against making sure that Europe > is represented in the wide scale, but its not what we, > and many others orignally signed up for. And its certainly > not something that should be forced upon people. We signed > up to the registration services. When I signed up to the ripe mailing list in mid-1990, there was no registration service, but it was a coordination initiative for IP in Europe. That's OK for us (speaking for de.lfnet and probably for de.oberon as well). > > If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a > > very good example of self-gouvernance, many national > > government regulations would be in place instead -- and it > > would be a big mess. > Self governance?! There is no governance - there is apathy and > the widening remit that the RIPE has been taking is not > acceptable. With the reports, meeting reports etc, my requirements for transparency and cost control are met, I have no problem. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From mally at ripe.net Wed Aug 13 13:45:50 2003 From: mally at ripe.net (Mally Mclane) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:45:50 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] E-mail list removeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1060782350@ginger.ripe.net> Hi Mark and other list members, --On Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:50 PM +0100 Mark Brett wrote: > > Please remove mark at brett.com from allo f your lists asap. Our lists can be self-managed by subscribers clicking on the appropriate list link at: Those links will allow you to unsubscribe and change various list options Each post to the mailing list also contains information in it's headers on how to unsubscribe. If you have further problems, please contact . Regards, Mally Mclane RIPE NCC - Operations From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 13 13:54:14 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:54:14 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities References: <00cd01c3618d$17d03570$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <05b901c36191$9e3b3b60$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Neil J. McRae wrote: > Agreed on the "spirit" of what you have to say. I also > think that there would need to a mention of something that > states that this should be done within the limits of the law > in Holland. Perhaps also consider immediate to by end > of 2003 to give time to hand over some projects to other > bodies/parties that might be interested in them. OK, based on your and other comments, I agree that the word "immediate" is inappropriate in (a). Some time scale should be included, else we will end up in a place where "tomorrow" is the timescale. "as soon as practical within the constraints of acceptable practise and law" perhaps ? > I think the most disappointing aspect of this situation is > that the RIPE NCC management team and board aren't leading > this discussion and that they themselves have not yet > realised that the situation as it stands is not fair to those > members who only want registration services. Amen. Peter From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 14:21:12 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:21:12 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <00d401c36195$627f09e0$f75f4ad4@doom> > When I signed up to the ripe mailing list in mid-1990, > there was no registration service, but it was a coordination > initiative for IP in Europe. And that wasn't the RIPE NCC. > > That's OK for us (speaking for de.lfnet and probably for > de.oberon as well). > Yes but, as I recall, after the Terena split is when +everyone+ effectively signed up to the NCC. > With the reports, meeting reports etc, my requirements for > transparency and cost control are met, I have no problem. That isn't governance though is it? In my view the the RIPE NCC should look at ways of splitting the registration services away from "all the other stuff" and enable the members to sign up to just the registration services without funding all the other things that they may see little or no benefit from. Those that see benefit from activties like the route monitoring etc, can support them and fund them more directly. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. The RIPE NCC management and board could easily deliver this, and if they looked at the situation with an open mind they should know that the current situation is unsustainable and they should be actively leading to resolve this rather than risk the dangers of burying their heads in the sand. Regards, Neil. From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 14:22:10 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:22:10 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: <05b901c36191$9e3b3b60$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <00d501c36195$85410c80$f75f4ad4@doom> > OK, based on your and other comments, I agree that the word > "immediate" is inappropriate in (a). Some time scale should > be included, else we will end up in a place where "tomorrow" > is the timescale. "as soon as practical within the > constraints of acceptable practise and law" perhaps ? There should definately be a cut of point yes. Neil. From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 13 15:00:52 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:00:52 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <00d401c36195$627f09e0$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <05ec01c3619a$ed603930$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Neil J. McRae wrote: > Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an > objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, > its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the > funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. Agreed from my perspective. Peter From gert at space.net Wed Aug 13 15:06:01 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:06:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <055701c3618b$765fe3d0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:10:10PM +0100 References: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> <055701c3618b$765fe3d0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20030813150601.D67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:10:10PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual membership > fee rises on a community that has no choice ? You're surely aware of the 50% *drop* in membership fees in the years before? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Wed Aug 13 15:07:27 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:07:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom>; from neil@COLT.NET on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:58:20AM +0100 References: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20030813150727.E67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is > self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of > that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to > day operations of the RIPE NCC also. If I remember the figures correctly, the RIPE meeting is actually making a surplus. (Could someone please point at the proper numbers to back this, or correct me if I'm wrong?). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) 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 Wed Aug 13 16:14:23 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:14:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00d401c36195$627f09e0$f75f4ad4@doom> References: <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> At 01:21 PM 13-08-03 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: >In my view the the RIPE NCC should look at ways of splitting the >registration services away from "all the other stuff" and enable >the members to sign up to just the registration services without >funding all the other things that they may see little or no benefit >from. Those that see benefit from activties like the route monitoring >etc, can support them and fund them more directly. i have no problem with ripe ncc's lobbying efforts, since i consider it a valid, sane, and non-biased opinion vs. the lawyers and opportunists that have crowded themselves into icann. that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an advocate for it. -hank >Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an >objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, >its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the >funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. > >The RIPE NCC management and board could easily deliver this, and >if they looked at the situation with an open mind they should know >that the current situation is unsustainable and they should be actively >leading to resolve this rather than risk the dangers of burying their >heads in the sand. > >Regards, From gert at space.net Wed Aug 13 15:36:10 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:36:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:14:23PM +0200 References: <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> <00d401c36195$627f09e0$f75f4ad4@doom> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030813153610.H67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on > this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their > functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and > which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe > ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an > advocate for it. This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants. Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the result :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) 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 Wed Aug 13 16:39:47 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:39:47 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813153610.H67740@Space.Net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> <00d401c36195$627f09e0$f75f4ad4@doom> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813163900.04de3990@max.att.net.il> At 03:36 PM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on > > this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their > > functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and > > which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding > ripe > > ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an > > advocate for it. > >This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the >members, and then do what the majority wants. > >Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the result :-) neither will i. thats what makes it good. -hank >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) > >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 Aug 13 15:45:03 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> Neill, all, First of all I must say that I like the fact that the new RIPE NCC Services Working Group obviously is taking off :-) With regard to the repeatedly stated opinion that the RIPE NCC management, and the RIPE NCC Executive Board are unaware of the members' opinions, and needs, I am convinced that those members of the community who have followed the events, presentations and planning discussions of the last year (from the conduct of the membership survey 2003, the move of the General Meeting to the Friday of the RIPE Meeting, and through to the proposal of the Activity Plan and other documents in preparation of that General Meeting), know full well that we are very aware of these concerns, and that actions continue to be proposed, and are taken where approved, to adjust activities to the expressed need of RIPE NCC members and stakeholders. The existence of this Working Group and mailing list in itself is just one minor outcome. The point of "Just Registration Service" is moot. As we all now, the industry has changed. Well, actually the running of a geeks' network instead of the politically correct technology has *become* the industry before that. And thus has attracted all sorts of people, politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, the lot. We cannot go back to the old days of just registering numbers. The risk is high that one day we would awake to the ITU doing Internet Governance. "Please see your local MP to effect a change in IP allocation policy, to be discussed at the next plenipotentiary of the ITU." We need to do more, to establish the RIPE NCC in the minds of politicians, journalists, "the public" as a trustworthy place you can turn to to gain insight in the operations of the Internet. About the RIPE meetings: They are crucially important to the functioning of the RIPE NCC, and of industry self regulation. Yes, they should be self supporting, but they aren't fully. Can we raise the meeting fees? Of course. But we need to balance this very carefully, as we cannot run the risk of eating into attendance numbers too much. regards, Axel From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 15:46:12 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:46:12 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813153610.H67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <00e201c361a1$42883ec0$f75f4ad4@doom> > This is something I would agree on. Break down the > functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants. > > Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the > result :-) > Some might say this is the situation we are in now. Frankly, I think the core part of the RIPE NCC should be something thats set in stone as much as it can be, with the other activities have a process to start and finish them that needs to have a reasonably majority of the membership in favour to approve, proposals should have an indication of the budget and how it is expected to be funded, with clear end deliverables and timescales. Regards, Neil. From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 13 16:03:23 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:03:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> References: <20030813114408.GU83663@complx.LF.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813160826.00ac0050@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030813140323.GV83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their > functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and > which not to pursue. That's very fine with me. It is my impression that the RIPE budget is transparent enough already to allow this. So there's only the "poll" step missing. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From neil at COLT.NET Wed Aug 13 16:17:27 2003 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:17:27 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> Message-ID: <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> Alex, > With regard to the repeatedly stated opinion that > the RIPE NCC management, and the RIPE NCC Executive > Board are unaware of the members' opinions, and needs, > I am convinced that those members of the community > who have followed the events, presentations and planning > discussions of the last year (from the conduct of the > membership survey 2003, the move of the General Meeting to > the Friday of the RIPE Meeting, and through to the proposal > of the Activity Plan and other documents in preparation of > that General Meeting), know full well that we are very aware > of these concerns, and that actions continue to be proposed, > and are taken where approved, to adjust activities to the > expressed need of RIPE NCC members and stakeholders. > > The existence of this Working Group and mailing list > in itself is just one minor outcome. You need to move faster then as the impression you give is that you are dragging your feet, and as they say where I come from - The Natives are Restless. > The point of "Just Registration Service" is moot. Until you demonstrate this point in my view you are talking complete and utter nonsense. > As we all now, the industry has changed. Well, actually > the running of a geeks' network instead of the > politically correct technology has *become* the industry > before that. And thus has attracted all sorts of > people, politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, the lot. Anyone who believes that these people have only just become involved in this industry are very short-sighted. These people +have+ always been involved in one way or another. Is it not a sign of our industries maturity that some involvement has changed - absolutely and personally speaking thats a good thing in the most part. > We cannot go back to the old days of just registering > numbers. The risk is high that one day we would awake > to the ITU doing Internet Governance. "Please see your > local MP to effect a change in IP allocation policy, > to be discussed at the next plenipotentiary of the ITU." And correctly the RIPE NCC and other organisation was setup to deal with issues like this. But the RIPE NCC was not setup to deal with spam or other "insert random activity here". > We need to do more, to establish the RIPE NCC in the minds > of politicians, journalists, "the public" as a trustworthy > place you can turn to to gain insight in the operations of > the Internet. I'm not sure I agree and I think the RIPE NCC needs to do more to establish itself with its members first Alex! However, If this is the direction the NCC is heading in, then the RIPE NCC needs more thinking around its organisation and how it structures to ensure that this "objective" is met, because at the moment, frankly, its a million miles away from where it needs to be to be successful in those areas. Even more particularly so, in the case that we have a situation where the level of member involvement is a serious problem, you said the work trustworthy? How can you be trustworthy when the level of member interest is highly questionable? When you sign up members for one thing and do another?! Doesn't sound too trusting to me. I'm not against a number of the RIPE's activities, in fact some of the work that has been done has been great, but it needs to have strong foundations and support from the RIPE NCC members and stakeholders and at the moment that isn't the case. I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of the members signed up so they can register IP addresses, AS numbers and get reverse DNS and if all the other stuff stopped tomorrow that they wouldn't even notice. In my view this is the critical part of the problem. The purpose of the RIPE NCC are the registration services which is what we signed up for. There are a several other organisations that have been setup working with the public and the media to lobby specific points and actions. Yes the RIPE NCC needs to be involved but I do not believe for one moment it needs to be the leading in these activities and these activlties should be focused around the registration and internet numbering areas noted above. > About the RIPE meetings: They are crucially important > to the functioning of the RIPE NCC, and of industry > self regulation. Yes, they should be self supporting, > but they aren't fully. Can we raise the meeting fees? > Of course. But we need to balance this very carefully, as > we cannot run the risk of eating into attendance numbers > too much. Alex, I agree the RIPE meeting is important, but the length of the meeting and the amount of actual work that comes out of the meeting is highly questionable. Rather than raise meeting fees, look to shorten the meeting so that it is more cost effective and has more focus on getting some work done. The general meeting of the RIPE NCC should be part of the RIPE meeting also. I hear time and time again from alot of people that if the RIPE meeting was more focused and shorter then they would attend it more often. I'd be interested to hear what plans you have to modernise the meetings. Regards, Neil. From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Aug 13 16:42:55 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:42:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813162543.05796608@localhost> Neil, all, >You need to move faster then as the impression you give is >that you are dragging your feet, and as they say where >I come from - The Natives are Restless. I have heard comments to the contrary. That's not really the point though. >Anyone who believes that these people have only just >become involved in this industry are very short-sighted. >These people +have+ always been involved in one way or >another. Is it not a sign of our industries maturity that >some involvement has changed - absolutely and personally >speaking thats a good thing in the most part. I'm not saying that. The point is that the Internet is seen as being of economic importance. Including the distribution of addresses. People who have not known about us 15 years ago, and have ignored us 10 years ago, are becoming interested to run this activities for themselves. On a national level, on a governmental basis. >And correctly the RIPE NCC and other organisation was setup >to deal with issues like this. But the RIPE NCC was not >setup to deal with spam or other "insert random activity here". Absolutely agree. > > We need to do more, to establish the RIPE NCC in the minds > > of politicians, journalists, "the public" as a trustworthy > > place you can turn to to gain insight in the operations of > > the Internet. > >I'm not sure I agree and I think the RIPE NCC needs to do more >to establish itself with its members first Alex! That's what we hear, and what we are working towards. >I'm not against a number of the RIPE's activities, in fact some >of the work that has been done has been great, but it needs to have >strong foundations and support from the RIPE NCC members and >stakeholders and at the moment that isn't the case. I fully agree with you, our activities need to be supported by our members. We need to propose clearly, in case we would start something new, with a clear timeline, budget, *benefit for the members*. >I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of the members >signed up so they can register IP addresses, AS numbers and get >reverse DNS and if all the other stuff stopped tomorrow that they >wouldn't even notice. In my view this is the critical part of the >problem. Indeed. My argument is that "the other stuff" is not seen as important, but it actually is essential to keep the "core activities" in the members' hands. >There are a several other organisations that have been setup working >with the public and the media to lobby specific points and actions. >Yes the RIPE NCC needs to be involved but I do not believe for one >moment it needs to be the leading in these activities and these >activlties should be focused around the registration and internet >numbering areas noted above. Yes, this is more or less what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about becoming a lobbying organisation. I'm talking about making our (the community's, the members', the NCC's) knowledge available in a much more focused, targetted way. We need to make trusted data available, and be known for that. Scarcity of IPv4 addresses is just one very obvious, self-perpetuating myth that needs to be killed. > The general meeting >of the RIPE NCC should be part of the RIPE meeting also. Building on your wishes, this will happen this time around. >I hear >time and time again from alot of people that if the RIPE meeting >was more focused and shorter then they would attend it more often. I heard the same. Is it time then to request space on the agenda to make a proposal and discuss it? I'm sure Rob would be accommodating. >I'd be interested to hear what plans you have to modernise the meetings. The RIPE NCC is here (besides others) to organise the RIPE meetings according to the community consensus. If the outcome of that discussion is to have a three day meeting, we can organise it that way. cheers, Axel From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 13 17:03:33 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:03:33 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <20030813150333.GW83663@complx.LF.net> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: [...] > I'm not against a number of the RIPE's activities, in fact some > of the work that has been done has been great, but it needs to have > strong foundations and support from the RIPE NCC members and > stakeholders and at the moment that isn't the case. Most of the tasks RIPE is taking up are things that *are* of relevance, but most members do not notice the relevance for a few years *after* 8-) E.g. the k-root multisite experiment or the anti-spam wg (which lagged, but was and is very important). > I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of the members > signed up so they can register IP addresses, AS numbers and get > reverse DNS and if all the other stuff stopped tomorrow that they > wouldn't even notice. Yes, they would not notice for a few years and then would wake up and say "We *had* this and killed it, my, now, that we need it". > The purpose of the RIPE NCC are the registration services which is what > we signed up for. The purpose extends to other important areas, and they need to be covered in an open manner. I know other ways this can be covered (DE-NIC, ECO) and I do not prefer those ways. It was suggested: "If you need lobbying, start another group". I've done that already (www.ispeg.de, very german-centric), but this does not keep me from wanting RIPE being the platform for advanced topics it currently is. > There are a several other organisations that have been setup working > with the public and the media to lobby specific points and actions. Yes, and most/all of them failed for critical mass, skills, person power, influence, you name it. > > About the RIPE meetings: They are crucially important > > to the functioning of the RIPE NCC, and of industry > > self regulation. Yes, they should be self supporting, > > but they aren't fully. Can we raise the meeting fees? How much is required to cover all the costs ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 13 17:03:52 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:03:52 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <004f01c3610e$975ac2d0$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105720.00af5dc8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: > I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some > foreign country help me do my job better? they make less mistakes. i.e., about the same as when they have better coffee and more sleep, both of which we should also subsidize, i guess. though, in the case of LIR training, i guess it is just making their paper-pushers better, so it does not really affect me much at all. randy From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 13 17:11:26 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:11:26 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813122339.00b27e50@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: > il.iucc was the 1st paying ripe member and i've been attending meetings > off and on from before there was an ncc or even fees: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/meeting1-23/ripe-4.txt where your attendence in the record already indicates bureaucratic bloat! did you have to pay twice to attend that meeting? :-) From david at iprg.nokia.com Wed Aug 13 21:23:28 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:23:28 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813162543.05796608@localhost>; from axel.pawlik@ripe.net on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:42:55PM +0200 References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> <5.2.0.9.2.20030813162543.05796608@localhost> Message-ID: <20030813122328.B27936@iprg.nokia.com> Axel, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Axel Pawlik wrote: > > Scarcity of IPv4 addresses is just one very > obvious, self-perpetuating myth that needs to be killed. I am afraid that not all your membership agrees with this. The very fact that one has to become member of an organization with significant fees, that one has to go to training courses in order to understand how to get addressess and that one has to understand all kind of policies before one gets the actual ipv4 addresses that one needs means that they are in fact a scarce resource. >From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: scarce adjective not easy to find or obtain: Food and clean water were becoming scarce. scarce resources ipv4 addresses certainly qualify as 'not easy to obtain'. One has to do considerable effort to get some and even then, one hardly ever gets the amount that one would really like to have. Businesses and isps would be able to cut a lot of cost if they could get larger allocations, waste more space and be more relaxed in their ipv4 address inventory management. We cannot afford to do that because the resource that you are managing is indeed a scarce resource. The only reason that the RIPE NCC is needed is exactly for the reason that ipv4 addresses are a scarce resource. There might be enough for them for the near future if we keep rationing the distibution as we do now but we would certainly run out rather quickly if your organization would just give away ipv4 addresses to the people/organizations that ask for them. As I understand it, your core business is the management of a scarce resource and I don't see any reason why you should spend time killing a 'self-perpetuating myth' that is not a myth at all. David K. --- From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 13 22:05:42 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:05:42 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813122328.B27936@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, David Kessens wrote: > The only reason that the RIPE NCC is needed is exactly for the reason > that ipv4 addresses are a scarce resource. There might be enough for so then, why did I/IUCC have to rejoin RIPE in order to get an IPv6 /32? IUCC, as an NREN, hasn't had a need for IPv4 space since we got our /16s in the 1980s. We handed off our membership to ISOC-IL a number of years ago to manage the ASN and IPv4 space. Only once we needed an IPv6 /32 did we find out we had to rejoin RIPE NCC and pay membership fees. If Ipv6 isn't a scarce resource, then RIPE NCC shouldn't be managing it, according to your logic. We will never ask for IPv4 space or an ASN (we are happy with AS378) but will continue to pay our nKeuros/yr just to maintain our IPv6 /32. -Hank > them for the near future if we keep rationing the distibution as we do > now but we would certainly run out rather quickly if your organization > would just give away ipv4 addresses to the people/organizations that > ask for them. > > As I understand it, your core business is the management of a scarce > resource and I don't see any reason why you should spend time killing > a 'self-perpetuating myth' that is not a myth at all. > > David K. > --- > Hank Nussbacher From ben at kharkiv.net Wed Aug 13 22:45:19 2003 From: ben at kharkiv.net (Serge A. Goloborodko) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:45:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813103906.GJ61550@sunet.se> References: <20030813105716.E67740@Space.Net> <3122.1060766110@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> <20030813103906.GJ61550@sunet.se> Message-ID: <7391753734.20030813224519@kharkiv.net> MN> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:08:07PM +0200 Quoting Kurt Jaeger (lists at complx.LF.net): >> >> If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very >> good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations >> would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. MN> Indeed -- a swedish government investigation (SOU 2002:60) concluded: MN> "In Europe it is RIPE who hands out IP address space to operators MN> and other network owners. This arrangement has proved to be working, MN> and there is no reason to alter it at the moment." MN> SOU 2002:60, page 377, my (abridged) translation. MN> Please note -- this is the investigation which writes the bill that MN> implements the EU communications directive in Sweden; they have the MN> theorethical power to suggest legislation that in effect forces all MN> IP address allocation to be made by a government authority, per MN> nation-state. I do not think we or the governements want that... It depends. Recently, Ukrainian authority has made completely another statement. Serge. -- Best regards, Serge mailto:ben at kharkiv.net From david at iprg.nokia.com Wed Aug 13 23:49:21 2003 From: david at iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:49:21 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: ; from hank@att.net.il on Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:05:42PM +0300 References: <20030813122328.B27936@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <20030813144921.D27936@iprg.nokia.com> Hank, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:05:42PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, David Kessens wrote: > > > The only reason that the RIPE NCC is needed is exactly for the reason > > that ipv4 addresses are a scarce resource. There might be enough for > > so then, why did I/IUCC have to rejoin RIPE in order to get an IPv6 /32? > IUCC, as an NREN, hasn't had a need for IPv4 space since we got our /16s > in the 1980s. We handed off our membership to ISOC-IL a number of years > ago to manage the ASN and IPv4 space. Only once we needed an IPv6 /32 did > we find out we had to rejoin RIPE NCC and pay membership fees. If Ipv6 > isn't a scarce resource, then RIPE NCC shouldn't be managing it, > according to your logic. But if the members agree that it is a useful service to provide to it's membership it seems perfectly fine for them to provide this service. We will need somebody to keep track of who is using what regarding ipv6 addresses. Since the RIPE NCC already has systems for doing just that in ipv4, it seems that it is not a bad synergy with their existing services. What we don't need is the same restrictive policies as with ipv4 and as a result the fees, indirect costs and other barriers for getting ipv6 addresses should be considerable lower than for ipv4 addresses (which is indeed the case, though some might argue that the barrier is not low enough yet). And yes, I don't think that people who want just ipv4 addresses need to pay for people who want ipv6 addresses. Luckily enough, interactions with the registry for ipv6 addresses indeed seem to have been reduced to filling out a fairly simple application only one time. I haven't heard anybody yet who needed to come back for more addresses so the cost of providing ipv6 services should indeed actually be quite a bit lower and be more of the nature of an AS# request. > We will never ask for IPv4 space or an ASN (we are happy > with AS378) but will continue to pay our nKeuros/yr just to maintain our > IPv6 /32. -Hank There is organizations out there who have enough addresses or are not growing and I don't see much reason why they would need to pay high maintenance/yearly fees each year for the right on a small entry in the RIPE database. If they want to, it's fine with me but I don't think they should be required to pay (a lot) more than what they receive in services (and I do realize that an entry in the database is really not as cheap as one would think since there is serious costs involved with running a high quality database service - ip registries simply don't have the volume advantages as dns registrars/registries have). David K. --- From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 14 08:14:53 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:14:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813122328.B27936@iprg.nokia.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813162543.05796608@localhost> <5.2.0.9.2.20030813152602.02770690@localhost> <00e301c361a5$9fe578e0$f75f4ad4@doom> <5.2.0.9.2.20030813162543.05796608@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030814081115.024a8298@localhost> You are right, David, as we all know. IPv4 indeed is a scarce resource. The myth that we need to combat is that IPv4 address space is so scarce, that running out is imminent. The other, related myth, is that some areas of the globe have de facto run out, and cannot get new space, due to unfair allocation practices. We all know that this is not the case. This knowledge must be spread. I see one of the tasks of the RIPE NCC in facilitating this. cheers, Axel From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Thu Aug 14 09:48:42 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:48:42 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <20030813122328.B27936@iprg.nokia.com> <20030813144921.D27936@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <002401c36238$816f46f0$24e0a8c0@HATMADDER> David Kessens wrote: > But if the members agree that it is a useful service to provide to > it's membership it seems perfectly fine for them to provide this > service. > > We will need somebody to keep track of who is using what regarding > ipv6 addresses. Since the RIPE NCC already has systems for doing just > that in ipv4, it seems that it is not a bad synergy with their > existing services. Please stop playing political word games. You first justify your statement by saying "A is neccessary" then when A is shown to be based on questionable data, you say, "well now that we have done A anyway, lets do B since we can". Next I expect your assertion "B" to be doubted, and you will start on topic "C". Back to the original point, managing (potentially) scarce resources is, to me, the primary role of RIPE. Everything else is fluff and - basically - self-agrandisment (sp?). Peter From Bovio at aol.com Thu Aug 14 15:23:12 2003 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:23:12 EDT Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks and the Board Message-ID: <19d.190fa039.2c6ce740@aol.com> Folks, I have carefully read the various postings on the list and I think it is time for me to step forward and try to help in answer/clarify some of the less informed opinions that were expressed. The RIPE/RIPE-NCC issue. Formally Gert is right, but to some extend also the people who say RIPE and the RIPE-NCC are the same thing are somewhat right too, it all depends on how one look at it. In the early years RIPE was some 15-20 people in a room 3 times a year, (almost only from research and academic institutions) trying to coordinate the European IP networks activities and operations. Among the matters at hand it was the need to get IP address space from IANA, and also the need to perform a number of related technical activities that would allow the embryo of the European Internet to grow and function. Soon it became obvious to these people that it was not possible to do that via "volunteers" work, but some dedicated staff was necessary. Shortly thereafter the RIPE-NCC was born, its purpose to get address blocks from IANA, to be distributed locally, and to perform all the technical functions deemed necessary by the community. Back then the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE-NCC was quite obvious to everybody, also because the people participating at RIPE meetings represented pretty much 100% of the "customers" of the RIPE-NCC services: RIPE would discuss and approve the policy to be implemented by the RIPE-NCC. RIPE would also provide input, discuss and approve the activity plan of the RIPE-NCC. As of today the RIPE-NCC still implement the policies discussed and approved at RIPE meetings (yes, yes, Randy, I am aware of the criticism that the process is not altogether transparent anymore), and still seek guidelines from RIPE about technical activities. The main difference is that no longer 100% of the membership of the RIPE-NCC attend RIPE meetings (but only some 10% on average) and that the Activity plan/budget/fees are formally approved by those members who show up at the AGMs. From this point of view, for the members who do not attend either RIPE meetings or AGMs, RIPE and the RIPE-NCC are perceived as the same thing, although formally they are not. (notice that if from now on the RIPE-NCC AGM is held back to back with RIPE meetings this will probably increase this perception). Most of the organizations that joined the RIPE-NCC in the last 3-4 years (and they represent the majority of the membership now) seem to have no idea of all the above, and only joined the RIPE-NCC organization because their corporations need IP addresses and AS numbers to sell their business and make money. They could not care less about attending RIPE meetings (short or long), conservation of Ipv4 address space, and all the policies that were discussed and approved for that purpose, nor for the various technical activities that go with it, to make sure it works, or to anticipate possible future issues and make the Internet a better place, all they want is address space (and they only want to pay for that, darn!), and quick, because every customer lost represent a step toward bankruptcy or toward acquisition by some bigger fish, so for them the RIPE-NCC is only a monopolistic obstacle to their business. As it was stated on the list: nobody has objection to what the RIPE-NCC has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. I can see very well this point of view, and having been in the research world for quite sometime I can also see very well why, IMHO, it is flawed. Mind you, I am not stating here that the RIPE-NCC is lean and mean as I would like it to be, there is definitely room for progress, but I have to say I think it seems a very non-educated idea to me to split the funding this way. The Board-has-is-head-in-the-sand-and-does-not-realize-the-situation issue. Well, I can only speak for myself of course, but putting my board hat on I can tell you that I am very well aware of the fact that the Internet boom has caused, in the last few years, a gap between RIPE/the RIPE-NCC and its membership, and it took quite sometime to wake up and get the ball rolling to fix the situation, I plead guilty as charged here. I think, however, that a number of steps have been taken in the last 12 months or so to close the gap (the new proposed billing categories, the new algorithm taking in account Ipv6 and assignment dates to compute the fees, the survey, and this list being few examples) and more will be taken following member's input once we get it. As I stated already, anybody should feel free to approach us either at meetings, via mail, or by phone, all our data is available on the web site. Btw, I also welcome any proposal anybody wants to discuss and put before the AGM (and I do not see why anybody would not be willing to be seen "above the walls", anyway, what is he concerned about?), there are various ways to reach members and try to build enough consensus for that, via mailing lists (this one for instance), or just by looking at the web site, the full list is available there. In conclusion I can assure everybody that the board is carefully listening in the discussion and has the highest interest to follow and implement the willingness of the majority of the RIPE-NCC members. Cheers Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shane at ripe.net Thu Aug 14 18:24:43 2003 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:24:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II Message-ID: <3F3BB7CB.7040000@ripe.net> All, [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Attached please find a proposal for X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database. From the Database point of view (that is, syntax and semantics), it is the same as the one sent 3 July 2003. The difference is that it contains only the specific details of the change, in a straightforward fashion. I hope that we have addressed questions about the use of X.509 that arose in earlier discussions. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: x509-db-redux.txt URL: From joao at psg.com Fri Aug 15 15:24:41 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:24:41 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II In-Reply-To: <3F3BB7CB.7040000@ripe.net> Message-ID: Shane, adding a new strong authentication method to the Database, is in my own personal opinion, a good thing(tm), particularly if the same credential can be used for other interactions with the RIPE NCC, make user's life easier. I wonder however about a few questions: - will this auth method be available only to RIPE NCC members? Is it not seen as a valuable general addition for non-member users of the IRR part of the RIPE DB? - Why the choice of not publishing the pulic part of the certificated in the DB? The choice to have a key-cert for the PGP method was not to do with issues of web of trust but rather for purposes of helping the users with their data maintenance. As a matter of fact the recommendation regarding the use of PGP in the RIPE DB, as described in the RFC and the minutes of the DBSEC TF, was to use a PGP key for this purpose that was not used elsewhere. - will the RIPE NCC make avaiable, at the time of implementation, documentation to guide use of this feature by users with a couple of the most popular clients? Thanks for the good work, Joao Damas On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 06:24 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] > > Attached please find a proposal for X.509 authentication in the RIPE > Database. From the Database point of view (that is, syntax and > semantics), it is the same as the one sent 3 July 2003. The > difference is that it contains only the specific details of the > change, in a straightforward fashion. > > I hope that we have addressed questions about the use of X.509 that > arose in earlier discussions. > > -- > Shane Kerr > RIPE NCC > Addition of X.509 authentication to the Database > > > Proposal: > > To add an X509 authentication type to the "auth:" attribute. > Attributes with this type will use the Distinguished Name (DN) of the > certificate to identify it. > > > Motivation: > > X.509 allows a single authentication method to work for both e-mail > and the web. LIRs can receive an X.509 certificate through the LIR > Portal, and should be able to use this to update records they control > in the Database. X.509 is "strong", like PGP, although a different > trust model is used. > > > Details: > > The "auth:" attribute of the mntner class will have a new > authentication scheme, X509. The DN, as defined in RFC 2253, will be > used to identify the specific certificate used. > > Note that there is no key-cert object for the X509 scheme. Instead, > the certificate must be signed by a trusted authority. The trusted > authority will be the RIPE NCC Certificate Authority (CA) that is > currently only available to LIRs. It is possible to configure > additional CAs in future, should this become desirable. For instance, > existing commercial CAs could be allowed, or the RIPE NCC could create > a CA to issue certificates to non-LIRs for this purpose only. > > Below is an example of a maintainer with X.509 authentication: > > mntner: EXAMPLE-MNT > descr: Sample maintainer for example. > admin-c: SWK1-RIPE > tech-c: RD132-RIPE > tech-c: HOHO-RIPE > upd-to: ripe-dbm at ripe.net > mnt-nfy: ripe-dbm at ripe.net > auth: X509 C=NL, O=RIPE NCC, OU=Members, CN=zz.example.user1 > auth: X509 C=NL, O=RIPE NCC, OU=Members, CN=zz.example.user2 > notify: ripe-dbm at ripe.net > mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT > referral-by: RIPE-DBM-MNT > changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 20030813 > source: RIPE > > > Usage: > > E-mail updates for objects maintained by a maintainer with X509 > authentication must be sent in S/MIME format and signed (not > encrypted) using the private key associated with the issued > certificate. > > Synchronous updates for objects maintained by a maintainer with X509 > authentication must use an SSL connection using the private key from > the issued certificate on the client side. > > Web updates for objects maintained by a maintainer with X509 > authentication can use a browser with the certificate loaded. The web > updates screens will allow users to specify that they want to identify > themselves using the client-side private key, over an SSL connection. > From shane at ripe.net Fri Aug 15 16:23:19 2003 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:23:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F3CECD7.70903@ripe.net> Joao, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > > adding a new strong authentication method to the Database, is in my own > personal opinion, a good thing(tm), particularly if the same credential > can be used for other interactions with the RIPE NCC, make user's life > easier. > > I wonder however about a few questions: > > - will this auth method be available only to RIPE NCC members? Is it not > seen as a valuable general addition for non-member users of the IRR part > of the RIPE DB? Initially it will only be available for RIPE NCC members. There are three ways we could extend the service to non-LIRs: 1. Accept certificates from certain "well-known" CAs, for example Thawte, Verisign, etc. 2. Issue certificates from a RIPE NCC CA established for this purpose, and accept them. 3. Accept all certificates, including self-signed certificates. #1 is relatively easy - the main overhead would be maintaining the Certificate Revokation Lists from the CAs. Deciding which CAs to support may also be tricky. #2 is also relatively easy, since we already have the technology. #3 is more difficult, and would require a slight change of the design, and administration issues (see below). > - Why the choice of not publishing the pulic part of the certificated in > the DB? The choice to have a key-cert for the PGP method was not to do > with issues of web of trust but rather for purposes of helping the users > with their data maintenance. As a matter of fact the recommendation > regarding the use of PGP in the RIPE DB, as described in the RFC and the > minutes of the DBSEC TF, was to use a PGP key for this purpose that was > not used elsewhere. When you receive a PGP-signed message, you need the public key of the signer to verify the signature. The program that updates the Database needs this information, and it is stored in the key-cert objects(*). With S/MIME, the certificate is sent with the message, and this certificate is signed by the CA. Since the database is configured to know how to verify certificates issued by specific CAs, we can verify the signature. No key-cert is necessary. But if we decide to allow any certficate, including self-signed, then we need some way to allow users to store this information in the database, for example key-cert objects. Unfortunately, this may cause problems, because (for instance) someone could create a key-cert object for a CA run by another organisation with bogus data, preventing users from using certificates *actually* issued by that CA. We could possibly require these sort of key-cert objects be reviewed by some method, for example RIPE DBM. However, if the RIPE NCC has no relationship with the CA, we have no real way to know the validity of any one request. > - will the RIPE NCC make avaiable, at the time of implementation, > documentation to guide use of this feature by users with a couple of the > most popular clients? We are planning on including documenting use for popular clients as part of our research into S/MIME compatibility. This is expected before we add X.509 support for the RIPE NCC hostmasters. I would rather not delay implementing the X.509 authentication to the Database for this. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC (*) We used to also maintain a GnuPG key ring with this information, but now we build a temporary key ring each time we verify a signature, to avoid data synchronisation issues. From joao at psg.com Fri Aug 15 16:54:16 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:54:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Fwd: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II Message-ID: <5765BF54-CF30-11D7-8D3B-003065521028@psg.com> On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > Joao, > > Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: >> adding a new strong authentication method to the Database, is in my >> own personal opinion, a good thing(tm), particularly if the same >> credential can be used for other interactions with the RIPE NCC, make >> user's life easier. >> I wonder however about a few questions: >> - will this auth method be available only to RIPE NCC members? Is it >> not seen as a valuable general addition for non-member users of the >> IRR part of the RIPE DB? > > Initially it will only be available for RIPE NCC members. Another interesting change in the model? When you say initially, does this mean it will be extended or not? Shall on read the current proposal as implicitly stating this? > There are three ways we could extend the service to non-LIRs: > > 1. Accept certificates from certain "well-known" CAs, for example > Thawte, Verisign, etc. > > 2. Issue certificates from a RIPE NCC CA established for this purpose, > and accept them. > > 3. Accept all certificates, including self-signed certificates. > > #1 is relatively easy - the main overhead would be maintaining the > Certificate Revokation Lists from the CAs. Deciding which CAs to > support may also be tricky. #2 is also relatively easy, since we > already have the technology. #3 is more difficult, and would require > a slight change of the design, and administration issues (see below). For DB authentication purposes, why do you need to verify the certificate? As with the PGP model[1], the only assumption one needs to make is that the message issuer is the holder of the private part of the certificate. If the RIPE DB is going to start making assertions about the real identity of the message sender, rather than just authorise or refuse updates, this seems to be a change in the model that warrants discussion in the working group. Is this so, or am I misinterpreting your description of the mechanism? > >> - Why the choice of not publishing the pulic part of the certificated >> in the DB? The choice to have a key-cert for the PGP method was not >> to do with issues of web of trust but rather for purposes of helping >> the users with their data maintenance. As a matter of fact the >> recommendation regarding the use of PGP in the RIPE DB, as described >> in the RFC and the minutes of the DBSEC TF, was to use a PGP key for >> this purpose that was not used elsewhere. > > When you receive a PGP-signed message, you need the public key of the > signer to verify the signature. The program that updates the Database > needs this information, and it is stored in the key-cert objects(*). > > With S/MIME, the certificate is sent with the message, and this > certificate is signed by the CA. Since the database is configured to > know how to verify certificates issued by specific CAs, we can verify > the signature. No key-cert is necessary. > > But if we decide to allow any certficate, including self-signed, then > we need some way to allow users to store this information in the > database, for example key-cert objects. Unfortunately, this may cause > problems, because (for instance) someone could create a key-cert > object for a CA run by another organisation with bogus data, > preventing users from using certificates *actually* issued by that CA. > > We could possibly require these sort of key-cert objects be reviewed > by some method, for example RIPE DBM. However, if the RIPE NCC has no > relationship with the CA, we have no real way to know the validity of > any one request. Why do you need to verify the certificate. Also, part of the idea of having a key-cert object was to allow users to check, not the DB, and to maintain DB self-consistency. Are these no longer desired features? Joao [1] RFC 2726 From nigel at titley.com Sun Aug 17 15:12:01 2003 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: 17 Aug 2003 14:12:01 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813150727.E67740@Space.Net> References: <20030813100807.GT83663@complx.LF.net> <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> <20030813150727.E67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1061125920.25264.5.camel@woden> On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:07, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > > The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is > > self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of > > that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to > > day operations of the RIPE NCC also. > > If I remember the figures correctly, the RIPE meeting is actually making > a surplus. (Could someone please point at the proper numbers to back > this, or correct me if I'm wrong?). Last set of accounts I saw showed the RIPE meetings making a loss (albeit not a major one). This was on the agenda to be tackled by the EB. Not sure what the current situation is, but I don't see the RIPE meeting fees having gone up much. Nigel -- Nigel Titley From joao at isc.org Fri Aug 15 16:50:47 2003 From: joao at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:50:47 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II In-Reply-To: <3F3CECD7.70903@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > Joao, > > Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: >> adding a new strong authentication method to the Database, is in my >> own personal opinion, a good thing(tm), particularly if the same >> credential can be used for other interactions with the RIPE NCC, make >> user's life easier. >> I wonder however about a few questions: >> - will this auth method be available only to RIPE NCC members? Is it >> not seen as a valuable general addition for non-member users of the >> IRR part of the RIPE DB? > > Initially it will only be available for RIPE NCC members. There are > three ways we could extend the service to non-LIRs: > > 1. Accept certificates from certain "well-known" CAs, for example > Thawte, Verisign, etc. > > 2. Issue certificates from a RIPE NCC CA established for this purpose, > and accept them. > > 3. Accept all certificates, including self-signed certificates. > > #1 is relatively easy - the main overhead would be maintaining the > Certificate Revokation Lists from the CAs. Deciding which CAs to > support may also be tricky. #2 is also relatively easy, since we > already have the technology. #3 is more difficult, and would require > a slight change of the design, and administration issues (see below). For DB authentication purposes, why do you need to verify the certificate? As with the PGP model[1], the only assumption one needs to make is that the message issuer is the holder of the private part of the certificate. If the RIPE DB is going to start making assertions about the real identity of the message sender, rather than just authorise or refuse updates, this seems to be a change in the model that warrants discussion in the working group. Is this so, or am I misinterpreting your description of the mechanism? > >> - Why the choice of not publishing the pulic part of the certificated >> in the DB? The choice to have a key-cert for the PGP method was not >> to do with issues of web of trust but rather for purposes of helping >> the users with their data maintenance. As a matter of fact the >> recommendation regarding the use of PGP in the RIPE DB, as described >> in the RFC and the minutes of the DBSEC TF, was to use a PGP key for >> this purpose that was not used elsewhere. > > When you receive a PGP-signed message, you need the public key of the > signer to verify the signature. The program that updates the Database > needs this information, and it is stored in the key-cert objects(*). > > With S/MIME, the certificate is sent with the message, and this > certificate is signed by the CA. Since the database is configured to > know how to verify certificates issued by specific CAs, we can verify > the signature. No key-cert is necessary. > > But if we decide to allow any certficate, including self-signed, then > we need some way to allow users to store this information in the > database, for example key-cert objects. Unfortunately, this may cause > problems, because (for instance) someone could create a key-cert > object for a CA run by another organisation with bogus data, > preventing users from using certificates *actually* issued by that CA. > > We could possibly require these sort of key-cert objects be reviewed > by some method, for example RIPE DBM. However, if the RIPE NCC has no > relationship with the CA, we have no real way to know the validity of > any one request. Why do you need to verify the certificate. Also, part of the idea of having a key-cert object was to allow users to check, not the DB, and to maintain DB self-consistency. Are these no longer desired features? Joao [1] RFC 2726 From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 21:08:08 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:08:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <197.1e4ec925.2c69fd86@aol.com> Message-ID: <783E49DB-D278-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Daniele, > I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I > strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the > recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and > positively react to constructive criticism. I think it a bit to early to start claiming progress. Quality have improved, but I think want a bit more before I start jumping up and down of joy. > There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how > flaming on mailing lists helps. Agreed. > > Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the > ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Agreed! - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 21:23:10 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:23:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <004601c3610e$52ff3800$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <91E75D74-D27A-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> > I have NO communication path to approach this notional 5% as I do not > have > access to a membership list, and I dislike spamming folks anyway. Not > all > members are on an open mailing list (AFAIK) - or rather not all those > who > are in a position to vote on behalf oif their company. The ncc-services WG was created in order to create a forum for these discussions. You have from what I remember in the past used the LIR WG mailinglist for arguing your view. What else should we do? I will be the first yo say I certainly do not think that RIPE NCC have been up to their primary task, and I must say I am still in doubts. However, I will also acknowledge that the membership have not really been paying much attention and doing their job either. In principle we are where we are because of our own fault. _WE_, the users and members of the RIPE NCC should be giving feedback to Axel and the rest of the NCC management as well as the board on where we think NCC needs to go and what should change. They can not second guess us. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:00:31 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:00:31 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Message-ID: <2B6838BC-D288-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> > It is proposed that the RIPE-NCC (a) immediately cease all activities > not > directly required for the management of those registry functions > necessary > to the continued well being of the Internet in Europe and other related > territories, and There are activities of the NCC that can be discussed if they are to be considered relevant or not. However, what current activities of the RIPE NCC do you feel that are not "necessary to the continued well being of the Internet"? Actually I guess the Internet would be much better off if we stopped handing our more addresses... > (b) undertakes a program of rationalisation that reflects > the ongoing commercial consolidation of it's membership while > maintaining an > efficient and adequate level of service. I will support that the membership of RIPE NCC should take part in outlining what we think it should be done and how. Always. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:03:16 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:03:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8DC8D93D-D288-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the >> attendees. >> if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor >> time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per >> attendee, >> with no affect on the overall ncc budget. > > Hello. > > In the first moment, this proposal would prevent people that doesnt go > to > training sessions to pay it. This would benefit the people in some > smaller/far away countries if the NCC wouldnt have a program all around > its service region... > > I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for > everybody to > pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. > I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person > exchanges > jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case > should > this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? > Or it > is paying for the training that person got some time ago? > > About this topic, i have a positive feeling about the recent extending > of > training courses to DNS-SEC and RRC by the NCC. Hostmasters and LIR managers that understands the RIPE process well, and also gets training on how to run a LIR effectively helps the RIPE NCC off-load it's work, and should be considered as helping us save costs rather than contribute to them. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:04:44 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:04:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813105258.00acdd30@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 10:56 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for >> everybody to >> pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is >> included. >> I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person >> exchanges >> jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case >> should >> this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? >> Or it >> is paying for the training that person got some time ago? >> > > when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your > company to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly > trained LIR benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some > place 1000km away might benefit me. I would actually prefer that MS and Cisco trained people so that they would not need all that support staff and could lower the costs of my products. You will end up paying for that one way or the other. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:06:45 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:06:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813120128.00ac21d8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <0A1C09CA-D289-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:03 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something > like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. > i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. > -Han If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:11:03 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:11:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00bf01c3618a$6a6f8360$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: Let's all keep the discussions to issues, not persons nor measurement of manhood... - kurtis - On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 13:02 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote: > >> It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show >> for longer than most of you. > > And what has that to do with anything? Frankly if you've been involved > with this "show" for longer than most of us, I wouldn't be advertising > the fact, considering the mess that this "show" is currently in. > > Regards, > Neil. > From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:09:48 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:09:48 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <00b601c36189$cf174b50$f75f4ad4@doom> Message-ID: <77837019-D289-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:58 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote: > The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is > self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of > that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to > day operations of the RIPE NCC also. For what all I know, the RIPE meeting is self-funding? - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:15:19 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:15:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <055701c3618b$765fe3d0$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <3C9464E4-D28A-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 13:10 Europe/Stockholm, Peter Galbavy wrote: > >> Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on: >> >> If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very >> good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations >> would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. > > Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual > membership > fee rises on a community that has no choice ? > What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:22:46 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:22:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <05ec01c3619a$ed603930$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <46DEAC38-D28B-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Peter, On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 15:00 Europe/Stockholm, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Neil J. McRae wrote: >> Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an >> objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, >> its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the >> funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. > > Agreed from my perspective. > I am just trying to understand you reasoning. So you agree that the projects of RIPE NCC are useful, but you don't really want to pay for them? Although I also think that the NCC needs to work on their financials, especially when their customers are in a down-turn, I also see that a number of the projects that the NCC deals with, doesn't really have a better home in the European Internet. If you look at what the RIRs do in the other regions, the more established ones as in ARIN and APNIC, also have activities outside their main focus. The RIRs have traditionally given a good co-operative framework for these types of projects. If we think that these projects are useful, we need to decide how they should be run and funded. Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over increased transparency in financials, information to the membership and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 19 23:25:03 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:25:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <20030813153610.H67740@Space.Net> Message-ID: <98A5FD32-D28B-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership >> on >> this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all >> their >> functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and >> which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of >> funding ripe >> ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an >> advocate for it. > > This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the > members, and then do what the majority wants. > Even more important. I would like to see the projects progress reported at the NCC services WG at each RIPE meeting, and perhaps also a general cost structure. Not that I want to now what each member in the project costs, but I want to see the general relationship between that project and overall cost figures. Best regards, - kurtis - From joao at psg.com Wed Aug 20 00:26:33 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:26:33 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <46DEAC38-D28B-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <30068126-D294-11D7-88C3-000A959B2120@psg.com> On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 23:22 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE > NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over > increased transparency in financials, information to the membership > and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership. > I agree completely. This is why I welcomed Daniel's presentation in Barcelona regarding the new approach to measurements at the RIPE NCC. Let the projects prove their worth and let the members know fully what is going on. Joao From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 20 05:26:46 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:26:46 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities References: <005e01c3615b$71cfae20$29e0a8c0@HATMADDER> <2B6838BC-D288-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: > There are activities of the NCC that can be discussed if they are to be > considered relevant or not. However, what current activities of the > RIPE NCC do you feel that are not "necessary to the continued well > being of the Internet"? an interesting question, to which i have no answer. i would note the contrast between the four current rirs, with arin being very bare-bones address allocation, lacnic adding more educational outreach as they perceive a need in their region, apnic which does more infrastructure and more outreach work, and ripe/ncc which has major branches into representing isps in policy fora, doing r&d, etc. to be clear, my personal issues with the current ripe/ncc is *not* with the address allocation bureaucratic process. not having used it recently, i have no experience on which to base any statement, and i gather that considerable work has continued to go into making this basic and critical process work. my issue is with ripe/ncc (and apnic) forgetting that the internet is a cooperative venture, making war with icann (with whom folk know i have major doubts, and towards which my comment on lawers and politicans replacing a part-time computer scientist were directed (some years ago)), naively aligning with the itu (apnic has joined the itu), and non-cooperation with the ietf. it is how these policies are made and decided in back rooms that tip me over the edge. it is not my enemies who make me most frustrated, it is my friends. randy From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 09:16:07 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:16:07 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposal: Reduction of RIPE-NCC Actvities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2B0F0B32-D2DE-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> There are activities of the NCC that can be discussed if they are to >> be >> considered relevant or not. However, what current activities of the >> RIPE NCC do you feel that are not "necessary to the continued well >> being of the Internet"? > > an interesting question, to which i have no answer. i would note > the contrast between the four current rirs, with arin being very > bare-bones address allocation, lacnic adding more educational > outreach as they perceive a need in their region, apnic which does > more infrastructure and more outreach work, and ripe/ncc which has > major branches into representing isps in policy fora, doing r&d, > etc. This is a very important observation, and I guess at the end what the debate is all about. The problem is also though that the "landscape" in the regions are very different. Traditionally RIPE have for example also to some extent played the role of NANOG, as the only alternative would have been something like EuroISPA. EuroISPA on the other hand is far more towards a lobbying organization, and very little into operational details. In the APNIC region there is also the APRICOT meetings. In the RIPE region, the natural co-operation point have been RIPE. When at KQ we attended the RIPE meetings as mush for meeting customers, solve various inter-provider problems, and also participate in the WG activities. What might be worth considering is to arrange the meetings in a more "US like manner" with the ARIN/NANOG split but with the meetings back-to-back. That would make it easier for people who only want to go to some of the current WGs. > my issue is with ripe/ncc (and apnic) forgetting that the internet > is a cooperative venture, making war with icann (with whom folk > know i have major doubts, and towards which my comment on lawers > and politicans replacing a part-time computer scientist were > directed (some years ago)), naively aligning with the itu (apnic > has joined the itu), and non-cooperation with the ietf. it is how > these policies are made and decided in back rooms that tip me over > the edge. it is not my enemies who make me most frustrated, it is > my friends. Hopefully we are changing this. But I do think part of the problem have been the lack of interest from the community in the past. - kurtis - From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 20 11:15:34 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:15:34 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <0A1C09CA-D289-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030813120128.00ac21d8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820111455.04e33830@max.att.net.il> At 11:06 PM 19-08-03 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:03 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >>i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something >>like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. >>i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Han > >If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda. Is this sufficient? Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services ------------------------------------------ The RIPE NCC provides the following public services: - Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum - Whois database - Routing Information Service project - Routing Registry Consistency project - Monthly RIPE region hostcount - DNSSEC services - Test Traffic measurement project - Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) - RIPE tri-annual conference It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by those members participating in those specific projects. This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff. -Hank >Best regards, > > >- kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 12:46:29 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:46:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820111455.04e33830@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <8E71D441-D2FB-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >>> i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see >>> something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of >>> some sort. >>> i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the >>> membership. -Han >> >> If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda. > > Is this sufficient? Comments below. Do you want to make a presentation as well? > Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services > ------------------------------------------ > > The RIPE NCC provides the following public services: > > - Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum > - Whois database > - Routing Information Service project > - Routing Registry Consistency project > - Monthly RIPE region hostcount > - DNSSEC services > - Test Traffic measurement project > - Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) > - RIPE tri-annual conference > > It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the > LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run > each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the > revenue > generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR > will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work > items > they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by > those members participating in those specific projects. > > This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 > months > prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the > RIPE NCC > sufficient time to reorganize its staff. I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short. - kurtis - From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 20 13:53:54 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:53:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <8E71D441-D2FB-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820111455.04e33830@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820134827.00b19280@max.att.net.il> At 12:46 PM 20-08-03 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >>>>i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something >>>>like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. >>>>i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the >>>>membership. -Han >>> >>>If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda. >> >>Is this sufficient? > >Comments below. Do you want to make a presentation as well? I don't think I will. I think this is more for a general discussion than a presentation. See below. >>Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services >>------------------------------------------ >> >>The RIPE NCC provides the following public services: >> >>- Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum >>- Whois database >>- Routing Information Service project >>- Routing Registry Consistency project >>- Monthly RIPE region hostcount >>- DNSSEC services >>- Test Traffic measurement project >>- Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) >>- RIPE tri-annual conference >> >>It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the >>LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run >>each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue >>generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR >>will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items >>they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by >>those members participating in those specific projects. >> >>This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months >>prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC >>sufficient time to reorganize its staff. > >I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a >discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would >suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in >Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing >projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the >autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on >Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is >if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with >that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short. A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership. It gets the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger voice in meetings. What is the % of LIRs that attend? In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank >- kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 13:26:00 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:26:00 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charter Message-ID: <13916E72-D301-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> All, I called for volunteers to help me write the proposal of the charter some weeks ago. My plan was to get this done while I was on vacation, and once back take it to the list. Unfortunately the laptop-gods where against me and my laptop crashed. So in order to save some time, I will take the charter directly to the list. My apologies to all those that volunteered, and many thanks for offering to help out. Attached is my rudimentary proposal. Please feel free to comment! Best regards, - kurtis - -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: charter.txt URL: From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 13:55:43 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:55:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820134827.00b19280@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <3A41467C-D305-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >>> This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 >>> months >>> prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the >>> RIPE NCC >>> sufficient time to reorganize its staff. >> >> I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a >> discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I >> would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to >> me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and >> existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years >> budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough >> time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one >> problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM >> that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is >> very short. > > A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership. It gets > the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are > closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger > voice in meetings. What is the % of LIRs that attend? That is a good point, but holding the poll will also take resources. I am not against a poll as such, but in order to cast the vote, the LIRs will also need to dedicate resources to follow the development and make sure they understand what they are voting for. We also need to take into account what it means to cancel a project, and what the NCC management does with this. > In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not > work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal > hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank Seems reasonable to me. - kurtis - From dominic at ripe.net Wed Aug 20 16:24:19 2003 From: dominic at ripe.net (Dominic Spratley) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:24:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of new request forms for IPv4, IPv6 and AS requests. To make the request process easier, requests can be completed and submitted directly from the Tools section of the LIR Portal. This also provides real-time syntax checking and help. https://lirportal.ripe.net/ Text versions of the new forms and their supporting notes (with examples of completed requests) are available for download from the Document Store found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html#request The new forms can be used immediately. The old forms can still be submitted during the three month transition period ending on 19 November, 2003. If you have any questions on the new forms, please contact . Suggestions for improvements to the new forms on the LIR Portal are welcome at . Improved and new functionality is planned for future versions. Kind regards, Dominic Spratley Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 20 16:30:48 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:30:48 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <3A41467C-D305-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >>> This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 > >>> months > >>> prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the > >>> RIPE NCC > >>> sufficient time to reorganize its staff. > >> > >> I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a > >> discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I > >> would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to > >> me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and > >> existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years > >> budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough > >> time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one > >> problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM > >> that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is > >> very short. > > > > A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership.It gets > > the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are > > closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger > > voice in meetings.What is the % of LIRs that attend? > > That is a good point, but holding the poll will also take resources. I > am not against a poll as such, butin order to cast the vote, the LIRs > will also need to dedicate resources to follow the development and make > sure they understand what they are voting for. We also need to take > into account what it means to cancel a project, and what the NCC > management does with this. I am sure the LIRs that don't want to dedicate resources to follow the development will be the same that don't subscribe to any of the lists and the same that don't attend any RIPE meetings. No one is forcing anyone to participate, but we are just giving a wider population of LIRs a chance to effect change. > > > In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not > > work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal > > hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank > > Seems reasonable to me. Thanks. I hope this item finds its way onto the agenda. > > - kurtis - > Hank Nussbacher From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 20 16:43:42 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:43:42 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <3C9464E4-D28A-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <005c01c3672a$110d2f70$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and > interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the > AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that > RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in > the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have > voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the > outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we > had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on. And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ? I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ? Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 20 16:50:00 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:00 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <46DEAC38-D28B-11D7-A889-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <005d01c3672a$5554e420$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > I am just trying to understand you reasoning. So you agree that the > projects of RIPE NCC are useful, but you don't really want to pay for > them? No, not quite. I agree that *some* of the non registry projects that RIPE has undertaken are useful. I strongly object however to not being consulted if *my* money shoul be spent on them. The problem here is that there is some sort of belief that there is a democracy operating at RIPE and that the membership fees are some sort of tax that goes into a shared pot. This view, IMHO, is flawed. RIPE is a self-agrandising monopoly that abuses its position to extract money from a wide range of "members" that, ultimately, cannot be bothered with arguing about a "few thousand euro" for the service they get - because for most member representatives, this is not their own money but that of their employers - and why should they fight the system ? Where is the cost-based charging scheme that other monopolies or (using UK Oftel speak, "significant market power") companies are forced to use ? > Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE > NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over > increased transparency in financials, information to the membership > and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership. You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think. That is the point I am trying to make - everyone "in power" conveniently forgets the consultation / approval part and pretends that a one way information channel is enough. Peter From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 17:32:19 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:32:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <005c01c3672a$110d2f70$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <7C3366BF-D323-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and >> interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the >> AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that >> RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in >> the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have >> voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the >> outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we >> had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on. > > And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote > on > ongoing use of members funds ? Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. > I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. For voting? Have you read the lir-wg list from this spring and the results of the KPMG survey as well as the presentations made by Axel of suggested improvements? Did you bring this up when you became a RIPE NCC member? I personally think we should have gone for on-line voting earlier and that holding the AGM with the RIPE meetings would have been better. But I haven't blamed the men in black for this, as I have never proposed something else myself. > Or would > that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live > off > RIPE ? Have anyone opposed this? Or are you just assuming that the world is a conspiracy against you? RIPE and the RIPE NCC is only as good as what you help it make with suggestions and constructive comments. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Aug 20 17:36:58 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:36:58 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <005d01c3672a$5554e420$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <226B283E-D324-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> I am just trying to understand you reasoning. So you agree that the >> projects of RIPE NCC are useful, but you don't really want to pay for >> them? > > No, not quite. I agree that *some* of the non registry projects that > RIPE > has undertaken are useful. I strongly object however to not being > consulted > if *my* money shoul be spent on them. You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the mailinglists. > The problem here is that there is some sort of belief that there is a > democracy operating at RIPE and that the membership fees are some sort > of > tax that goes into a shared pot. I am not following this. Perhaps you could explain again. > This view, IMHO, is flawed. RIPE is a > self-agrandising monopoly that abuses its position to extract money > from a > wide range of "members" that, ultimately, cannot be bothered with > arguing > about a "few thousand euro" for the service they get - because for most > member representatives, this is not their own money but that of their > employers - and why should they fight the system ? I think a lot of people "fight" the system. At every meeting and in many posts to the mailinglists over the years. >> Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE >> NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over >> increased transparency in financials, information to the membership >> and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership. > > You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think. No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can not have the decision right as that is with the AGM. > That is the point I am > trying to make - everyone "in power" conveniently forgets the > consultation / > approval part and pretends that a one way information channel is > enough. Oh so I am also "in power"? And we haven't even had the first meeting! Wow ;-) I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on this... Best regards, - kurtis - From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 20 17:40:32 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:40:32 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <7C3366BF-D323-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <017e01c36731$6417ddd0$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In > that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out > the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more > or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big switch" being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of projects. The budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no". There is no consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are approved for inclusion into said budget approval. > For voting? Have you read the lir-wg list from this spring and the > results of the KPMG survey as well as the presentations made by Axel > of suggested improvements? Did you bring this up when you became a > RIPE NCC member? I was not aware of the scale of the issue, and the membership fee was not increased by 50% without much consultation *before* I became a member. > Have anyone opposed this? Or are you just assuming that the world is a > conspiracy against you? I am not so delusional as to believe there is any kind of conspiracy against me, either as an individual or as a RIPE member. That does not however preclude the use of the word "conspiracy" to apply to the furthering of the agendas and interested of those who run NGOs like RIPE. Note the differentiation of "conspiracy against" vs. "conspiracy for" ? Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Aug 20 17:45:29 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:45:29 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks References: <226B283E-D324-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <018701c36732$15238160$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but > you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on > the mailinglists. And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored. I am not alone in making these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the RIPE membership fees are *mine* and I don't really care about being ridiculed for talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public. >> You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think. > > No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the > projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can > not have the decision right as that is with the AGM. Why not ? The AGM should be a rubber stamp occasion where the "consensus" arrived at either on mailing lists on through online voting is approved for legal reasons. Come on, why not ? Your turn to answer a question instead of answering with another question. > Oh so I am also "in power"? And we haven't even had the first meeting! > Wow ;-) I was not referring to you individually, but making a general point about what the RIPE membership is meant to think they have power for. > I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the > KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was > the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can > comment on this... I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come. Peter From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 20 17:41:15 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:15 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <7C3366BF-D323-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In > that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out > the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or > less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. One time per year is enough for membership feedback and determining the budget for the subsequent year. -Hank From shane at ripe.net Wed Aug 20 19:10:46 2003 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:10:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: Fwd: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II In-Reply-To: <5765BF54-CF30-11D7-8D3B-003065521028@psg.com> References: <5765BF54-CF30-11D7-8D3B-003065521028@psg.com> Message-ID: <3F43AB96.7050505@ripe.net> Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > > Why do you need to verify the certificate. Good question. We thought about this, and talked about this here at the RIPE NCC, and realised that there is no real reason to verify the certificate, other than insuring that it matches some user-specified entry in the database (meaning a key-cert object). Not keeping certificate objects in the database fits in well with the X.509 model, but as I pointed out, has some limitations. Using certificate objects allows LIR certificates, certificates issued by $random CA, and also self-signed certificates. It does mean we'll need to modify our proposal a bit, as well as add more intelligence to the LIR Portal to maintain this data as transparently to the user as possible. We'll be sending out an updated proposal ASAP. We also decided that it makes sense to proceed with the S/MIME comparison on e-mail clients before we implement anything. We're working on this now, and will have some results before the RIPE meeting. > Also, part of the idea of having a key-cert object was to allow users to > check, not the DB, and to maintain DB self-consistency. Are these no > longer desired features? I wasn't really aware that this was a goal of the DB. AFAIK, the database is not intended as a generic key repository, for instance. One of the key pieces missing from the RIPE Database is a document describing what the philosophy of the Database is. The RIPE NCC staff working in the DB group have a feeling for what parts of the philosophy are, and certainly people involved in the community for a time know the history. I'm talking about things like, "the data belongs to the users, not the RIPE NCC" and "all of the data in the database is public". I think it would be useful to have a document that describes this. If other people think this could be useful, perhaps we can convince some people to author some text for this. Volunteers? :) -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC From lists at complx.LF.net Wed Aug 20 20:58:24 2003 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:58:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <018701c36732$15238160$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> References: <226B283E-D324-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> <018701c36732$15238160$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <20030820185824.GH83663@complx.LF.net> Hi! > > You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but > > you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on > > the mailinglists. > And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored. I am not alone in making > these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the RIPE > membership fees are *mine* You're not unique in that. > and I don't really care about being ridiculed for > talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public. That's a bit too strong. RIPE wears nice summer clothes, light, but very much sufficient 8-) > I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide > better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come. I assume this kind of rapid feedback collapses after a while under lack of participation. I would not mind if RIPE does this kind of survey, maybe we learn from it whether it works or not. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From Bovio at aol.com Wed Aug 20 21:09:44 2003 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:09:44 EDT Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> In a message dated 20/08/03 17:34:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. Folks, Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as possible to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic voting is not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is the only viable form. Cheers Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao at isc.org Wed Aug 20 19:17:56 2003 From: joao at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:17:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <017e01c36731$6417ddd0$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <3D7E99F0-D332-11D7-9AAA-000A959B2120@isc.org> On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 17:40 Europe/Amsterdam, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >> Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In >> that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out >> the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more >> or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. > > I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big > switch" > being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of > projects. The > budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no". When you set up an association in any country, there are laws that tell you about things like statutes that regulate the operation of the association. There are also some constraints on what can and can't be in those statutes. In the case of the RIPE NCC the applicable law is the Dutch one. As part of defining proxy voting in the statutes, to address the issue of requiring personal attendance to the best it could be done at the time, it was a requirement that the agenda points of the AGM be published well in advance so that people considering using a proxy for voting could know what they were voting for. As a consequence, yes, the activity plan needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole. The articles of association are at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html. It even includes an article on how to change the document itself. As times change, changes may be necessary, but honestly, I don't think assuming bad will from anyone's side is fair or true. Yes, like many long running organisations, things may settle into auto-pilot or even drift away from the intended purpose, but then it is the community's part in this whole thing to nudge it back into track. > There is no > consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are > approved for inclusion into said budget approval. Maybe, but the activity plan is always publish well in advance and since it is not approved until the AGM, the time in between publishing and approval (or rejection) is the time to make changes to it. Joao From joao at isc.org Wed Aug 20 19:28:34 2003 From: joao at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:28:34 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] X.509 authentication in the RIPE Database, take II In-Reply-To: <3F43AB96.7050505@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 19:10 Europe/Amsterdam, Shane Kerr wrote: > >> Also, part of the idea of having a key-cert object was to allow users >> to check, not the DB, and to maintain DB self-consistency. Are these >> no longer desired features? > > I wasn't really aware that this was a goal of the DB. AFAIK, the > database is not intended as a generic key repository, for instance. No, it is not, and that is a good feature, I think. > > One of the key pieces missing from the RIPE Database is a document > describing what the philosophy of the Database is. The RIPE NCC staff > working in the DB group have a feeling for what parts of the > philosophy are, and certainly people involved in the community for a > time know the history. I'm talking about things like, "the data > belongs to the users, not the RIPE NCC" and "all of the data in the > database is public". > Perhaps, maybe an item for the agenda in 2 weeks time? Wilfried? > I think it would be useful to have a document that describes this. If > other people think this could be useful, perhaps we can convince some > people to author some text for this. Volunteers? :) > I am willing to contribute within my limited understanding of the DB :) Joao From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 21 03:24:36 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:24:36 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <226B283E-D324-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> References: <005d01c3672a$5554e420$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030821024734.028ae6a8@localhost> At 20/08/2003 17:36 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >I don't think anyone have forgotten [the cosultation process]. Much of the >input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand >that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can >comment on this... Axel is currently attending the APNIC meeting... Thus I am a few hours out of synch with the discussion. Bear with me. All the changes that you are seeing being introduced stem from the feedback of the 2002 survey of RIPE NCC members and shareholders. Discussions on the now defunct lir-wg mailing list have been valuable input, too. These changes include, but are not confined to: - Establishing the RIPE NCC Services WG - re-naming and re-chartering the LIR WG - Moving the General Meeting to the RIPE meeting - introducing the RIPE NCC Member Update newletter - using the Services WG for sanity checks with the community. Feedback that we have received, and discussion we had over the course of this year, indicate that these changes are welcome, and that the course we are charting for the next year are seen to improve the RIPE NCC's services for members and community. Thank you to all the contributors, on and off list. I feel a few words about the intented role of the RIPE NCC Service WG, and its interplay with the General Meeting are warranted... The RIPE NCC is a membership association under Dutch law. That means, its governance has to adhere to the rules Dutch law lays down (Joao has commented on that). As Daniele says, these rules say that assiciation governance has to be effected through General Meetings of the members, which need to be attended in person. To enable voting for members who cannot travel, a proxy system is foreseen, and is actually in use for years. We have looked at possibilities for Electronic Voting, unfortunately Dutch law has no provisions (yet?) for this. We have seen very low attendance of RIPE NCC General Meetings since 1998, in comparison with participation levels at RIPE meetings. Also, the agenda of General Meetings is inflexible, and proceedings might appear stiff, due to the very tight focus of those meetings. To alleviate the shortcomings of General Meetings, and to further clarify the role of the RIPE working groups, we have proposed that a RIPE NCC Services WG is set up. My intention was that this working group should act as a wider, more informal forum for interaction between the RIPE NCC, and its users. This includes members, but also the wider community. We want to use this working group for reports about our services (surprise...) and service levels, and for discussions about which services are needed, which are not, and what we should be doing to be of most efficient service to all. It will be a walk on a tightrope, for some time to come, to distinguish clearly between the roles of the Services WG and the General Meeting. The General Meeting will continue to be the formal tool for association governance, while the Services WG will serve as a more informal tool to guide the association's board and staff, in between the General Meetings. Formally, the Services WG has no hold over the association. I, and the Executive Board, would be incredible stupid, though, were we to ignore what is discussed here. Since I have your attention, I would like to urge the RIPE NCC members between you to go and register for the General Meeting on Friday, 5 September. We see an increase in registrants as compared to previous General Meetings, but the absolute numbers are still very disappointing. thanks, and regards, Axel From dr at cluenet.de Thu Aug 21 03:37:35 2003 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:37:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net>; from dominic@ripe.net on Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:24:19PM +0200 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030821033735.C31199@homebase.cluenet.de> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of new request forms for > IPv4, IPv6 and AS requests. Uhm, can someone point me to the discussion and decision finding process leading to these rather radical changes to especially the PI request? I must have missed those. In detail, I'm somewhat _shocked_ about things like: - "why-pi:" This is a new requirement. Formerly, you didn't have to justify that. In one example, "Also security reasons means independence is required." is used to justify PI. Can anyone explain what "PA or PI" has anything to do with security? - "Respecting the goal of address space conservation, it is not acceptable to request a larger number of IPs than are needed for routing or network administration." Any LIR is allowed to do so by granting them an allocation. For LIRs, address space conservation is less of an issue? _Especially_ enterprise LANs/WANs can have some very complicated routing situations requiring sensible subnetting. - [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION] This requirement _can't_ be meant serious. We're not on April 1st, are we? The silliness of such information requirement was already recognized within the IPv6 allocation realm, so why introducing it now again for IPv4? Further, the term "peer" is used in a very unclear way in the ASN request form and the supporting notes. Formerly, one uplink and one peer (commercial term) were enough to justify an ASN, as this constitutes a "unique routing policy". The ASN request form allows this interpretation of "peering partners" with "peering" in the technical sense. BUT the supporting notes specifically mention the requirement for two peers to "ensure that the organisation is multihomed". For me, multihoming means to have at least two _upstreams_. This would be a more stricter policy than before. What was the real intention behind these phrases? These documents should be very specific in the usage of "peer". It might be interpreted technically or commercially, each implying different constraints. I suggest changing the wording from "peer" to "upstream" in order to avoid ambiguities. Regards, Daniel From dr at cluenet.de Thu Aug 21 03:41:26 2003 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:41:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <20030821033735.C31199@homebase.cluenet.de>; from dr@cluenet.de on Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:37:35AM +0200 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> <20030821033735.C31199@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20030821034126.A32380@homebase.cluenet.de> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:37:35AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > > The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of new request forms for > > IPv4, IPv6 and AS requests. > > Uhm, can someone point me to the discussion and decision finding process > leading to these rather radical changes to especially the PI request? > I must have missed those. Actually, I should have probably set a Reply-To: address-policy-wg, as ncc-services-wg is not appropriate. Sorry. :-/ Regards, Daniel From hank at att.net.il Thu Aug 21 09:40:25 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:40:25 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821093405.00ab4d60@max.att.net.il> At 03:09 PM 20-08-03 -0400, Bovio at aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 20/08/03 17:34:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, >kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: >Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out >of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being >worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the >RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. > >Folks, >Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as >possible to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic >voting is not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is >the only viable form. Well that more or less seals our fate since e-voting is out and proxy voting is limited to 2% of membership. From: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html Article 16, paragraph 4: "A proxy may not cast more than two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes of all members of the association whether or not present or represented at the meeting." If i understand this correctly, if there are say 4000 LIR members (a wild guess, no idea); and say 50 attend the GM (wild guess - no idea how many generally attend); then you can only accept 80 proxy votes for a total of 130 voting members. To me this does not seem like true representation. How does the Executive Board intend to recify this? or not? -Hank > >Cheers > >Daniele From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 21 08:57:23 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:57:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821093405.00ab4d60@max.att.net.il> References: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030821085443.0362b9c0@localhost> At 21/08/2003 09:40 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >Article 16, paragraph 4: >"A proxy may not cast more than two percent (2%) of the total number of >possible votes of all members of the association whether or not present or >represented at the meeting." > >If i understand this correctly, [...] Hank, this means that *a* proxy cannot cast more than 2 % of the total possible votes. So the actual limit to proxies is n * 2%, where n is the number of attendees of the GM. cheers, Axel From gert at space.net Thu Aug 21 09:00:19 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:00:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821093405.00ab4d60@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:40:25AM +0200 References: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030821093405.00ab4d60@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030821090018.W67740@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:40:25AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Article 16, paragraph 4: > "A proxy may not cast more than two percent (2%) of the total number of > possible votes of all members of the association whether or not present or > represented at the meeting." > > If i understand this correctly, if there are say 4000 LIR members (a wild > guess, no idea); and say 50 attend the GM (wild guess - no idea how many > generally attend); then you can only accept 80 proxy votes for a total of > 130 voting members. To me this does not seem like true representation. I read this differently. *Each* attendee can cast 2% of all votes, so 50 members would be able to represent 100% of all LIRs.... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55575 (56535) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From dominic at ripe.net Thu Aug 21 16:02:16 2003 From: dominic at ripe.net (Dominic Spratley) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:02:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <20030821033735.C31199@homebase.cluenet.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821144547.03a36b60@mailhost.ripe.net> Hi Daniel, I hope I can clarify some of your points below: At 03:37 AM 8/21/2003 +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: >On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > > The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of new request forms for > > IPv4, IPv6 and AS requests. > >Uhm, can someone point me to the discussion and decision finding process >leading to these rather radical changes to especially the PI request? >I must have missed those. We hope that the new forms will improve services to our members by only asking for relevant information relating to the evaluation of a request. By trying to be explicit about what information Hostmasters need, we aim to reduce the number of E-mails asking for further information and therefore reduce the overall time it takes for our members to receive their resources. We considered this to be an action on us from RIPE 38: "< 38.2 NCC Implement changes to the form while taking into account the comments from the WG >" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/lir-actions.html >In detail, I'm somewhat _shocked_ about things like: > >- "why-pi:" > > This is a new requirement. Formerly, you didn't have to justify > that. You raise a good point which we need to clarify. We are not asking members to justify to us why they need PI address space. However, what we find is that a number of LIR's misunderstand the difference between PA and PI address space and that time is often lost in trying to establish if this is the actual type of resource the LIR wants. By asking them to explain why they need PI address space rather than PA address space it helps resolve this issue and the request is processed faster. Having read through the supporting notes for PI assignment request form, I agree with you that it is ambiguous to say the least. We will update the document in the next release. > In one example, "Also security reasons means independence is > required." is used to justify PI. Can anyone explain what "PA or > PI" has anything to do with security? In our examples we tried to use the terms and phrases that our members actually use in the forms that they send in to us. Statements like the one above are regularly seen, in conjunction with further supporting information, in PI request forms. >- "Respecting the goal of address space conservation, it is not > acceptable to request a larger number of IPs than are needed for > routing or network administration." > > Any LIR is allowed to do so by granting them an allocation. > For LIRs, address space conservation is less of an issue? > _Especially_ enterprise LANs/WANs can have some very complicated > routing situations requiring sensible subnetting. RIPE - 127 talks about: "Assignment criteria for both kinds of address space will be exactly identical with regards to the amount of address space assigned, the registration requirements, etc. This also implies that assigning PI space prefixes longer than 24 bits is perfectly acceptable if the request does not merit 8 bits of address space to be assigned." http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-pa.html and in fact it is this particular part of the policy that sparked off the PI-TF and is currently under discussion on the address-policy-wg mailing list. >- [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION] > > This requirement _can't_ be meant serious. We're not on April 1st, > are we? The silliness of such information requirement was already > recognized within the IPv6 allocation realm, so why introducing it > now again for IPv4? This is a difficult one as it does require the LIR to do more preparation on their side. The less time a Hostmaster spends sending E-mails asking for additional information, the sooner the LIR gets their requested resource. Asking for the type of equipment used really helps the Hostmaster understand what and why IP addresses are being requested. >Further, the term "peer" is used in a very unclear way in the ASN >request form and the supporting notes. > >Formerly, one uplink and one peer (commercial term) were enough to >justify an ASN, as this constitutes a "unique routing policy". The >ASN request form allows this interpretation of "peering partners" >with "peering" in the technical sense. BUT the supporting notes >specifically mention the requirement for two peers to "ensure that the >organisation is multihomed". For me, multihoming means to have at least >two _upstreams_. This would be a more stricter policy than before. >What was the real intention behind these phrases? These documents >should be very specific in the usage of "peer". It might be interpreted >technically or commercially, each implying different constraints. >I suggest changing the wording from "peer" to "upstream" in order to >avoid ambiguities. Again this is a good point. However I don't think that either term is appropriate for all situations. When writing these documents we used the word peer as we wanted to emphasise it was the routing policy which was important. When designing these new forms we made sure that they could be updated and amended given feedback from the community at a later date. We appreciate your comments and hope that we have been able to clarify at least some of your points and address others in future releases. Best regards Dominic Spratley Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From joao at psg.com Thu Aug 21 16:06:23 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:06:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030821085443.0362b9c0@localhost> Message-ID: On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 08:57 Europe/Amsterdam, Axel Pawlik wrote: > At 21/08/2003 09:40 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> Article 16, paragraph 4: >> "A proxy may not cast more than two percent (2%) of the total number >> of possible votes of all members of the association whether or not >> present or represented at the meeting." >> >> If i understand this correctly, [...] > > Hank, > > this means that *a* proxy cannot cast more than 2 % of the > total possible votes. > > So the actual limit to proxies is n * 2%, where n is the > number of attendees of the GM. Axel, this doesn't sound right, given that attendance has usually between 10-20 members and I believe there are more than 0.5 proxie votes. Joao From ncc at ripe.net Fri Aug 22 02:18:20 2003 From: ncc at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:18:20 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030821085443.0362b9c0@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030822021454.028a5300@localhost> At 21/08/2003 16:06 +0200, Joao Damas wrote: >>this means that *a* proxy cannot cast more than 2 % of the >>total possible votes. >> >>So the actual limit to proxies is n * 2%, where n is the >>number of attendees of the GM. > >Axel, > >this doesn't sound right, given that attendance has usually between 10-20 >members and I believe there are more than 0.5 proxie votes. The "2%" relate to the total votes possible, not to the number of attendees at the meeting. Each of the attendees of a General Meeting would be able to represent (in proxy) the votes of up to 2% of the total membership's votes. So Gerd is right in stating that... >I read this differently. *Each* attendee can cast 2% of all votes, so >50 members would be able to represent 100% of all LIRs.... regards, Axel From hank at att.net.il Fri Aug 22 11:37:57 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:37:57 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Unneeded RIPE tasks Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030822111757.00b2cae0@max.att.net.il> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ap2004.html Section 5: "Incident Response Service (IRS) Procedures will be set up to quickly provide RIPE NCC members, the Internet community and the general public with authoritative data about unusual events on the Internet, such as DDoS on the RIPE NCC." Yet another unwanted and unneeded service that is handled quite well by many other organizations whether they be FIRST or nsp-sec or INOC-dba or Terena's CSIRT: http://www.first.org/ https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/nsp-security http://www.pch.net/inoc-dba/ http://www.terena.nl/tech/task-forces/tf-csirt/ No e-voting. No informal poll of what services are needed. RIPE NCC just keeps rolling along. Based on: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa97.html 2004 2003 2002 Total Expenses 10,263 9,811 10,442 I see no major cost reductions. Poll any of the 3500 LIR members and ask them what their budgets look like in 2004 as compared to 2002 and 2003. The problem is (and I know other NGOs in similar situations) that NGOs lose track of what is going on out in the real world and therefore feel that they have cut the budget if it is reduced 2-4%. The other problem is the apathy of the LIR members. 3500 LIR members and 95% are silent on the RIPE lists. Their employer doesn't pay them to sit on these lists. They pay them to get IPs and ASNs. A 10% reduction in membership fees - which would save perhaps 250-500Euro per year, is not worth fighting about, their employers didn't ask them to save them the money and such a small savings is noise to most budgets and not worth the manpower needed to argue and fight to get it changed. Looks like we are stuck with the status quo for a long time to come :-( -Hank From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Aug 22 16:38:46 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:38:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <017e01c36731$6417ddd0$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: <55E29F1C-D4AE-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> >> Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In >> that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out >> the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more >> or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. > > I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big > switch" > being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of > projects. The > budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no". There is no > consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are > approved for inclusion into said budget approval. I don't to objections preceding the discussions of the budget decisions, on the contrary - that is the idea with this WG. However, the decision needs to be taken by the NCC membership alone, and not in a public forum. This is the AGM. Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Aug 22 16:49:16 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:49:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <018701c36732$15238160$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: >> You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but >> you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on >> the mailinglists. > > And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored. If you are alone - yes. From the discussions from the vinter/spring from what I can remember you where far from ignored. > I am not alone in making > these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the > RIPE > membership fees are *mine* and I don't really care about being > ridiculed for > talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public. I don't see anyone ridiculing you. I see people disagreeing with you. They are in their full right to do so. >>> You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think. >> >> No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the >> projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can >> not have the decision right as that is with the AGM. > > Why not ? The AGM should be a rubber stamp occasion where the > "consensus" > arrived at either on mailing lists on through online voting is > approved for > legal reasons. Come on, why not ? Your turn to answer a question > instead of > answering with another question. Read what I write above. I have no problem with the WG discussing the activities of the NCC. However the WG is open to _anyone_, not just NCC membership. >> I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the >> KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was >> the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can >> comment on this... > > I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide > better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come. I think a more often KPMG like survey is more of value than forcing the RIPE NCC management and staff live under quarterly stability. That is how large listed companies operates. I think the NCC have a bit to before being there... - kurtis - From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 22 16:57:28 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:57:28 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <00A24C56.EEB7259E.3@cc.univie.ac.at> >I don't to objections preceding the discussions of the budget >decisions, on the contrary - that is the idea with this WG. This is not only the idea with _one_ WG, this is a general concept which we (many chairs) tried to put to work for a while throuighout the _differnt_ WGs. I have to admit that _I_ have ceased eventually to put it onto my WGs agenda again and again, because I usually saw a few heads nodding approval when an activity (or it's continuation) was proposed, and no dissent. Maybe we should put it again onto our agenda(s) as a standing item... >However, >the decision needs to be taken by the NCC membership alone, and not in >a public forum. The public forum is there to work on general consensus, and to gather up all the input from the community at large. The final decision - which usually is to simply agree on the proposed workplan AND TO FOOT THE BILL - rests with the LIRs who are going to see the invoices coming. >This is the AGM. Exactly. >Best regards, > >- kurtis - And I am still pretty convinced that this is a good structure and the proper way to do it! Wilfried. (for at.aconet's EUR, and the DB-WG) From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 22 17:04:43 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:04:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <00A24C57.F210BB6E.25@cc.univie.ac.at> >I think a more often KPMG like survey is more of value than forcing the >RIPE NCC management and staff live under quarterly stability. . putting the NCC into instability mode is going to hurt all of us eventually (but may be beneficial for a small minority for whatever reason) . may _I_ then, in the interest of preventing waste of _MY_ LIR's money, voice a strong objection against _that_ waste of money _and_ human resources at the NCC!? >That is >how large listed companies operates. I think the NCC have a bit to >before being there... Yes, and we all have seen the results for the well-being of quite a few companies in quite a few sectors of teh industry ;-) >- kurtis - Wilfried. From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Aug 22 17:18:39 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:18:39 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On onsdag, aug 20, 2003, at 17:41 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >> Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In >> that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out >> the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more >> or >> less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way. > > One time per year is enough for membership feedback and determining the > budget for the subsequent year. I agree to this. To some extend this worries me a bit tough. We are actually taking power away from the board members that are actually elected to represent us. At the same time, with the numbers of attendants that Axel posted, I am still worried over the lack of interest from the community... - kurtis - From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 22 18:43:45 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:43:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <00A24C65.C81DDE6E.13@cc.univie.ac.at> Kurtis, >To some extend this worries me a bit tough. We are actually taking >power away from the board members that are actually elected to >represent us. this is an interesting line of thought! I am working from the assumption that the bigger community (RIPE - which includes the rep.s of the Members!) develops and agrees to the activity plan, the NCC Members approve and agree to paid the bills, and the managing director is expected to make it happen, with whatever it takes. Operationally, I always saw the Board as a "background" group, which focuses on keeping the safety belts in good working condition, and to take care of formal responsibilities of the Association, as well as providing guidance to the MD. At the time when I was on the Board, we were very reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day management of the NCC. As this is a memory of the past, things might have changed. Probably something the Board should comment on. This would still be "representing us", but it might be slightly differnt from what you read into "represent us". It might indicate that you expect the Board to interfere on a more regular basis with day-to-day management? Otoh, we might still be completely in synch! >At the same time, with the numbers of attendants that >Axel posted, I am still worried over the lack of interest from the >community... Well, even a decision for a country to join the EU - or not - has problems to attract the interest of >50% of the electorate. And, the cost of attending an AGM in person, or to do it via remote participation (keeping in touch with meetings, minutes, discussions, manpower-wise throughout the whole year...) might be just as costly as the annual membership fee (or at least as the percentage of that which might get cut off, if you object to some issues)? >- kurtis - For me _one_ major (but maybe not _the_ only) problem is feature creep _in the address distribution policy_, and it's implementation by the NCC. Some of you might recall my comments about the cost of micro-management of /29s, resource reclamation discussions, and the like... Btw, I am glad that we (again just a small minority! And it would just cost a bag of recycled electrons for an email ;-0) have started to actually discuss things! Cheers, Wilfried. From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 22 19:39:24 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:39:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] Message-ID: <00A24C6D.8DD0D07E.7@cc.univie.ac.at> >To: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net >From: Hank Nussbacher >Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Unneeded RIPE tasks >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:37:57 +0200 > >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ap2004.html > >Section 5: >"Incident Response Service (IRS) >Procedures will be set up to quickly provide RIPE NCC members, the Internet >community and the general public with authoritative data about unusual >events on the Internet, such as DDoS on the RIPE NCC." Well, according to this text artefact, tihs can be many different things. From - putting a headline to an activity which every responsible organisation should undertake (to have a security role and to reasonably interact with other instances of such roles), to - trying to do things which others are doing already. Questions: 1) can we have a more elaborate description from the NCC of what activities are expected to be performed under this headline? 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? Answers to these Qs would make it much easier for me to be in favor or against :-) Wilfried. From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 25 09:06:59 2003 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:06:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) Message-ID: Dear Wilfried, Hank, On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >Section 5: > >"Incident Response Service (IRS) > >Procedures will be set up to quickly provide RIPE NCC members, the Internet > >community and the general public with authoritative data about unusual > >events on the Internet, such as DDoS on the RIPE NCC." I wrote this sentence and the paragraphs before them and, with all due respect, but I think that Hank cut away too much text here. > 1) can we have a more elaborate description from the NCC of what > activities are expected to be performed under this headline? These lines are part of a larger piece of text describing the Information Services (IS) activity. The goal of the IS activity is to collect statistical data on the Internet, ranging from individual providers (for example, RIS and TTM) via policy making groups (AP-WG on usage of resources), the Internet community (for example: number of AS's and prefixes seen) to the general public. Collecting the data alone is not sufficient, of course, we also want to make sure that the statistics we collect reaches the appropriate people in a timely manner. A subset of the IS activity is therefore to have procedures in place to distribute reports on data (analysis) quickly if the need arises. It is obviously not a goal to repeat what others are already doing quite well. However, the RIPE NCC has data that others do not have, and this we want to distribute. For example, earlier this year, we published a report on the impact of the sapphire worm on the Internet. Another example is a recent discussion on heise.de, on the unreachability on the .at ccTLD from the Telecom Austria network, involving some fingerpointing. NIC.AT already published the plots, but this could have been another case where we'd publish our data in order to (in)validate a claim. > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? As soon as the AP2004 is approved, we (Daniel K and myself) will write an implementation document, describing the activities proposed under section 5 in more detail. This document will be circulated to, I'd guess, the services-WG and discussed there. Cheers, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From hank at att.net.il Mon Aug 25 09:40:58 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:40:58 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > For example, earlier this year, we published a report on the impact of the > sapphire worm on the Internet.Another example is a recent discussion on > heise.de, on the unreachability on the .at ccTLD from the Telecom Austria > network, involving some fingerpointing.NIC.AT already published the > plots, but this could have been another case where we'd publish our data > in order to (in)validate a claim. I do not see ARIN or APNIC entered these kind of areas that are not "registration" orienated and as time moves on it would appear more and more RIPE services are not registration orienated. > > > > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? > > As soon as the AP2004 is approved, we (Daniel K and myself) will write an > implementation document, describing the activities proposed under section > 5 in more detail.This document will be circulated to, I'd guess, the > services-WG and discussed there. And you do not see this a procedurally wrong? Wherever I work, whenever they want to do "something new", they need to write it up fully, indicate the budget and manpower needed and then submit to management. Based on that info, management can make an intelligent decision. Instead, we have 1 paragraph describing what will be done in general and once the AP2004 is approved based on that, only then do we find out how much all this cost. I don't know a single company that works like this. > > Cheers, > > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > Hank Nussbacher From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 25 10:35:39 2003 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:35:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Hank, > > > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > > > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? > > > > As soon as the AP2004 is approved, we (Daniel K and myself) will write an > > implementation document, describing the activities proposed under section > > 5 in more detail.This document will be circulated to, I'd guess, the > > services-WG and discussed there. > > And you do not see this a procedurally wrong? Wherever I work, whenever > they want to do "something new", they need to write it up fully, indicate > the budget and manpower needed and then submit to management. Based on > that info, management can make an intelligent decision. I've seen this approach. I've also worked at places where the LOI/TDR approach was used: the first document ("Letter of Intent") gave a global outline of the activity, goals, deadlines, costs, manpower, etc. Only when this was approved, a second document ("Technical Design Report") was written discussing all the details. I personally believe that this approach makes much more sense, why waste time/money to work out details _before_ there is consensus that the activity should be persued in the first place. > Instead, we have 1 paragraph describing what will be done in general and > once the AP2004 is approved based on that, only then do we find out how > much all this cost. This is not correct. There is indeed only one paragraph in the AP2004, due to space constraints. However, there is also the strategy paper: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/hostcount.html with more details about the IS activity. This paper was discussed at RIPE45 and people have been invited to comment on this document on the tt-wg at ripe.net list. Then the proposed budget: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa97.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa03.html does contain an estimated budget for this activity. If you have any specific questions about the 2 documents mentioned above, I suggest that we take them to the tt-wg at ripe.net list. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From slz at baycix.de Mon Aug 25 11:43:10 2003 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:43:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821144547.03a36b60@mailhost.ripe.net>; from dominic@ripe.net on Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:02:16PM +0200 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030820145057.03db5e18@mailhost.ripe.net> <20030821033735.C31199@homebase.cluenet.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030821144547.03a36b60@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030825114310.B13657@mama.baycix.de> Hay, On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:02:16PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I hope I can clarify some of your points below: actually i didn't really want to get into this discussion, but it looks like _noone_ else has anything to say about the issues Daniel raised? Than can't be since he is right in most points. > At 03:37 AM 8/21/2003 +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: [...] most points have been more-or-less clearified by Dominic's answer, but: > >- [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION] > > > > This requirement _can't_ be meant serious. We're not on April 1st, > > are we? The silliness of such information requirement was already > > recognized within the IPv6 allocation realm, so why introducing it > > now again for IPv4? > > This is a difficult one as it does require the LIR to do more preparation on > their side. The less time a Hostmaster spends sending E-mails asking > for additional information, the sooner the LIR gets their requested resource. > Asking for the type of equipment used really helps the Hostmaster > understand what and why IP addresses are being requested. ... i still have a problem here if that should be a "must provide this information". I have no much problems with questions like "why-pi" or "routing-reasons" because they can obviously be answered with standard phrases (which renders them useless again, but if RIPE NCC sees that many "bad" requests from many LIRs (aren't they trained?), it's OK for me, no much work, no stupid questions). BUT... information like the equipment being used or a network plan or so _must_ be optional information, not _required_ information. It can't be that a company is _required_ to make statements about their network and equipment if they want to have IP-Adresses! (and no, RIPE doesn't always qualify for receiving such information). Besides that it's way too much work to fill that in seriously for big requests, and doesn't really make sense for small requests. This should be _optional_ information in cases where it's needed to explain an unusual request, whatever, "we have only one machine but it has 500 IP Adresses due to this and that special purpose which can't be handled otherwise due to these and those hardware and software limitations". Is it really only me who is of that opinion, or noone recognized this problem or doesn't think it's a problem? Or isn't it meant as _required_ information anyways and a "N/A" is enough in most cases as answer to this part of the request? ...curious. The reason i noticed that this might get a problem was due to the unholy [...] #[REQUIRED INFORMATION]# [...] % % 2. Please provide a network diagram in PostScript or JPEG % format showing your IPv6 network. Submission instructions % can be found in the RIPE document "Supporting Notes for the % Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service % Region" found at: % % http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-support-initial.html % % The diagram should indicate expected completion dates of % construction as well as how much IPv6 address space is % expected to be used in each subnet. % % [...] in the (old and new) IPv6 Initial Allocation request form. Since it says "required information" there, i already assumed that it might get a problem to get the IPv6 Allocation for us without providing this one. But i didn't see the point in doing so if i can make our network plans clear in text form, and explain the reasons why a network diagram for an IPv6 network is _completely_useless_ in general at the moment and especially in our case. Though, even on my 2nd mail on that request i just got the reply from some RIPE Hostmistress that "the inability to provide this network topology map calls into question the need for the IPv6 addresses being requested.". At the moment i'm really mad about this. We are currently prevented from deploying IPv6 addresses immediately because i don't have any Windows PC with Viso or something at hand, let alone the time to paint a very useless topology of our IPv6 overlay network, though i explained it in detail in text. (Not to mention that the statement that an active LIR which assigns IPv4 addresses for years is questioned that it will assign IPv6 addresses just because it doesn't like to waste time on painting network maps of some routers and tunnels is VERY doubiously to me.) Why the hell is such information _required_? Information about what equipment being used and a network topology map on a picture might be additional information at best. I fear that IP(v4) request will be denied or at least delayed in future if the RIPE Hostmasters are gonna complain about missing or unsatisfying information about the equipment in the future, too. That's not acceptable i think. But i might be wrong, we're realatively small and don't have that many requests in general, i just wonder why noone of the "big LIRs" sees this problem? You all have AWs that big that you don't care about filling in RIPE forms anyways and have payed managers to paint network diagrams all day? *hint* :) > >Further, the term "peer" is used in a very unclear way in the ASN > >request form and the supporting notes. > > > >Formerly, one uplink and one peer (commercial term) were enough to > >justify an ASN, as this constitutes a "unique routing policy". The > >ASN request form allows this interpretation of "peering partners" > >with "peering" in the technical sense. BUT the supporting notes > >specifically mention the requirement for two peers to "ensure that the > >organisation is multihomed". For me, multihoming means to have at least > >two _upstreams_. This would be a more stricter policy than before. > >What was the real intention behind these phrases? These documents > >should be very specific in the usage of "peer". It might be interpreted > >technically or commercially, each implying different constraints. > >I suggest changing the wording from "peer" to "upstream" in order to > >avoid ambiguities. > > Again this is a good point. However I don't think that either term is > appropriate for all situations. When writing these documents we used > the word peer as we wanted to emphasise it was the routing policy which > was important. So, the policy didn't change to "you have to have two _upstreams_ to get an ASN" but it's only a language-confusion here? P.S.: I think this discussion belongs to the address-policy-wg, not ncc-services-wg? Sorry for crossposting, remove the latter in any replies if i'm right. -- ========================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = NOC BayCIX GmbH = = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================== From db-news at ripe.net Mon Aug 25 12:27:19 2003 From: db-news at ripe.net (DB-News) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:27:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal Message-ID: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate messages] Following discussions at the RIPE NCC about a new Whois Database object, the organisation object, we have modified the previous proposal that you can find at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00013.html The main changes from the previous proposal are: - a "country:" attribute is added. - "org-type:" and "org-name:" attributes are added, and "organisation:" attribute is now a NIC handle, which will be automatically assigned during the creation of the object. The motivation for this is explained in Section 3 of the proposal. - Hierarchical names can be removed, mainly for simplicity. - Differing query results on the whois server introduced in section 5. According to this, the relevant organisation objects are appended to the query results (because the organisation that holds the resource is at least as important as the person/role objects mentioned in the resource object). Please let us know your comments and concerns about the new proposal attached to this mail. Thanks for your time and best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group An organisation object in the RIPE Database -------------------------------------------- 1. Motivation ------------------- Currently the RIPE Database stores two main types of contact information: person and role objects. The person and role objects provide a way to contact people responsible for operations or usage of the resources represented in the RIPE Database (IP blocks, autonomous systems, and domain names). However, none of these provide an easy way of mapping resources to a particular organisation. A user must first find an object containing contact information for that organisation. Then, assuming all of the organisation's objects refer to this contact information, the user must perform an inverse query to obtain a list of objects referencing the specified person or role. This indirect process can be somewhat obscure and therefore a request for a more direct way of attaching an object to an organisation is seen as a useful addition to the RIPE Database. This document is a proposal for an organisation object in the RIPE Database and the necessary database functionality. 2. The organisation object ----------------------- The organisation object provides information identifying an organisation such as a company, charity or university, that is a holder of a network resource whose data is stored in the RIPE Database. The organisation object is identified by a unique ID specified in the "organisation:" attribute which is the primary key. An organisation object can be referenced from other types of objects using an "org:" attribute. All objects associated with a particular organisation can be retrieved by performing an "inverse query" for the organisation's ID (handle) used in the "org:" attribute of database objects. Following is a template for the proposed organisation object and an example. All attributes except the "ref-nfy:", "organisation:", "org-name:" and "org-type:" have their usual meanings. organisation: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] org-name: [mandatory] [single] [look-up key] org-type: [mandatory] [single] [ ] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ] address: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] country: [mandatory] [single] [ ] phone: [optional] [multiple] [ ] fax-no: [optional] [multiple] [ ] e-mail: [mandatory] [multiple] [look-up key] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] ref-nfy: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] mnt-by: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] source: [mandatory] [single] [ ] 3. New attributes ---------------------- "organisation:" Specifies the ID of an organisation object. An organisation ID is made up of 'ORG-' prefix, followed by 2 to 4 letters, digits, a dash and is followed by the database source (in the RIPE Whois Database this is 'RIPE'). For example: ORG-RT34-RIPE Note that all parts are mandatory, thus ORG-RT-RIPE would be an invalid ID as it is missing the numeric part. Organisation object IDs are auto-generated similar to the way person/role "nic-hdl:" attributes are auto-generated. The user has to specify the ID of an organisation object as ORG-AUTO- during creation of the object, then it will be assigned an appropriate ID. The organisation ID is assigned using the "org-name:" attribute of the object. The user can specify the letter combination he/she prefers. For example if the user wants TTR as the letter combination, in the organisation ID, then ORG-AUTO-1TTR should be put into "organisation:" attribute during the creation of the object. The organisation ID cannot be reused. If an organisation ID was used in the past by an organisation object and then deleted, this ID cannot be used in new organisation objects. The auto-generation of organisation IDs and preventing reuse of them simplifies the external references. Note that when an organisation changes name, the "org-name:" can be modified accordingly. There is no need to change the organisation ID. "org-name:" Specifies the name of the organisation that this organisation object represents in the whois database. This is an ASCII-only text attribute. The restriction is because this attribute is a look-up key and the whois protocol does not allow specifying character sets in queries. The user can put the name of the organisation in non-ASCII character sets in the "descr:" attribute if required. "org-type:" Specifies the type of the organisation. The possible values are 'IANA' for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, 'RIR' for Regional Internet Registries, 'NIR' for National Internet Registries, 'LIR' for Local Internet Registries, and 'NON-REGISTRY' for all other organisations. "ref-nfy:" Specifies the e-mail address to be notified when a reference to the organisation object is added or removed. An e-mail address as defined in RFC 2822. [This functionality is used in the "irt-nfy:". The name of this attribute is more neutral allowing reuse in other object types.] "country:" Specifies the two-letter ISO3166 country code of the country where this organisation resides. "address:" Specifies the address of the organisation. This is a free-text attribute. "org:" May be included in any other object type. It points to an existing organisation object representing the entity that holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. 4. Authorisation checks ---------------------------------- When modifying an organisation object the update must pass authorisation checks specified by one of the mntners listed in the "mnt-by:" attributes of the organisation object. When adding an "org:" attribute to an object, the update of the object should pass the following authorisation checks: - from one of the maintainers of the organisation object - from one of the maintainers of the object being updated 5. Query changes ---------------- If a whois query returns an object with an "org:" attribute, the organisation object mentioned in this attribute is also appended to the query results. This behaviour can be disabled by using the '-r' flag in the query. 6. Examples ------------ A basic organisation object: organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE org-name: Random Street Internet Services org-type: LIR descr: An example organisation address: Random St. city: Amsterdam country: NL phone: +31 123 4567 fax-no: +31 123 4568 e-mail: contact at example-org.net admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE notify: ripe-mailbox at example-org.net ref-nfy: ripe-mailbox at example-org.net mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT changed: someguy at example-org.net 20030121 source: RIPE A network that references an organisation object: inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 descr: Sample network org: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE country: NL admin-c: JE1-RIPE tech-c: JE2-RIPE status: ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT mnt-lower: EXAMPLE-MNT changed: someguy at example-org.net 20030122 source: RIPE A query for this inetnum object: % whois 192.168.86.251 inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 descr: Sample network org: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE country: NL admin-c: JE1-RIPE tech-c: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE org-name: Random Street Internet Services org-type: LIR descr: An example organisation address: Random St. address: The Netherlands phone: +31 123 4567 fax-no: +31 123 4568 e-mail: contact at example-org.net admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example nic-hdl: JE1-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example Jr nic-hdl: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE From chr at jay.net Mon Aug 25 14:24:02 2003 From: chr at jay.net (Christian Rasmussen) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:24:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <20030825114310.B13657@mama.baycix.de> Message-ID: Hi, I agree with Daniel and Sascha, these issues are very important and needs to be discussed! As Daniel points out, these radical changes haven't been discussed in the maillinglists before beeing implemented - why? It seems reasonable enough to update the old forms, but I cannot see any big advantages in the new versions? Presently it is rather complex and time consuming to gather all the information needed to apply for IP addresses, especially since most customers do have other things than Internet on their mind, so they have to be given a very thorough explanation in order to make sense of such an application. The question is what information is needed and why? As a general rule, endusers are allowed to expect a maximum increase of 100% pr. year of IP addresses - so, to find out the number of IP addresses to assign the enduser simply needs to tell how many nodes requiring IP addresses they have, in case the endusers IP address requirement is higher than the number of nodes, a detailed technical documentation justifying this need is required. I don't see much reason for going into details about the organizational structure of the enduser neither the reason for requesting detailed information about each node.. either its there or its not! Of course there are situations when enduser informations sounds rather unrealistic, but if an enduser intentionally lies about their need in order to get more IP addresses than justifable, should the LIR be responsible for this? Regarding PI-space, in case an enduser can justify for example a /24, unless the enduser intends to be become LIR, should there be any reason for the enduser not to get a PI assignment if this is the endusers request? About the new forms, I assume the "ADDRESS SPACE USER" is intended to replace Organization overview so it is no longer required to explain the organization of a enduser in detail? If so, I think this is a good idea. "Does the organisation already have address space that ...." The only reason I can see is if the enduser has a connection to the Internet and buys another, probably on another location (of course the enduser could request extra IP addresses unjustifably, if so, the LIR should not waste time filling out the form but just explain the situation to the enduser), could there be other reasons for this? If not, I think the question should be clarified if not omitted. The whole address-space-returned-situation as well as stating exactly which IP nets the enduser has are a bit tricky.. Sometimes the enduser does not know exactly what IP addresses they have (or forgets to mention it..), the LIR has no way to be sure that the received information is correct (especially if the LIR, at which the enduser is also customer, has not registered the IP net). Who's responsibility is it that IP addresses are returned? I would think that it might be the LIR registering the IP assigment, but I haven't been able to find it? If so, why? #[EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION]# % % Please describe the equipment that will be used in the % network. Indicate the function of the equipment and provide % information regarding the way it uses IP address space. equipment-name: manufacturer-name: model-number: other-data: What is the reason for requesting the model-number and the other details!??! According to Dominic's responds it seems that this information is necessary for the hostmaster to evaluate the request, but how does it help to find out the number of IP addresses to assign if you know if a node is manufactored by IBM/HP/whatever? Or if is a model with 1,4 GHz CPU or 1,7 GHz? I don't believe there is any reason for this, if others could agree the hostmasters could save a lot of time by not having to look at these details. As both Daniel and Sascha has said it is simply not reasonable to request a network diagram, of course it can be optional. Dominic says that a reason for the thorough questions regarding PI-space is that some LIRs do not understand the difference between PA and PI!! But how can this justify consuming time at all the other LIRs?! But I don't understand how you can be LIR without understanding PA/PI? You have to state that you have read the relevant documents in order to become contact person, if PA/PI is not clear after reading the documents then the documents of course needs to be updated - but it doesn't make sense to have LIRs assign IP addresses without understanding the basic principals. I agree with Sascha that its not acceptable to have requests delayed because the forms requires these unreasonable informations! If other LIRs do not see this as a problem simply because of their large AW it doesn't make much sense; even if you assign most of your requests without consulting a Ripe hostmaster you're still required to have the information for the relevant form available... Anyway, I do not understand who benefits from having irrelevant information gathered! I hope somebody have comments to the above and can explain the reason for these to-be time consuming tasks, if not, these forms should be radically simplified. Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc at jay.net Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Sascha Lenz > Sent: 25. august 2003 11:43 > To: Dominic Spratley > Cc: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: > updated and available on LIR Portal > > > Hay, > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:02:16PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > I hope I can clarify some of your points below: > > actually i didn't really want to get into this discussion, but > it looks like _noone_ else has anything to say about the issues Daniel > raised? > Than can't be since he is right in most points. > > > At 03:37 AM 8/21/2003 +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > [...] > > most points have been more-or-less clearified by Dominic's answer, but: > > > >- [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION] > > > > > > This requirement _can't_ be meant serious. We're not on April 1st, > > > are we? The silliness of such information requirement was already > > > recognized within the IPv6 allocation realm, so why introducing it > > > now again for IPv4? > > > > This is a difficult one as it does require the LIR to do more > preparation on > > their side. The less time a Hostmaster spends sending E-mails asking > > for additional information, the sooner the LIR gets their > requested resource. > > Asking for the type of equipment used really helps the Hostmaster > > understand what and why IP addresses are being requested. > > ... i still have a problem here if that should be a "must provide > this information". > > I have no much problems with questions like "why-pi" or "routing-reasons" > because they can obviously be answered with standard phrases > (which renders them useless again, but if RIPE NCC sees that many > "bad" requests from many LIRs (aren't they trained?), it's OK for me, > no much work, no stupid questions). > > BUT... information like the equipment being used or a network > plan or so _must_ be optional information, not _required_ information. > It can't be that a company is _required_ to make statements about > their network and equipment if they want to have IP-Adresses! > (and no, RIPE doesn't always qualify for receiving such information). > > Besides that it's way too much work to fill that in seriously for > big requests, and doesn't really make sense for small requests. > > This should be _optional_ information in cases where it's needed > to explain an unusual request, whatever, "we have only one machine > but it has 500 IP Adresses due to this and that special purpose which > can't be handled otherwise due to these and those hardware and software > limitations". > > Is it really only me who is of that opinion, or noone recognized this > problem or doesn't think it's a problem? Or isn't it meant as > _required_ information anyways and a "N/A" is enough in most cases as > answer to this part of the request? > ...curious. > > The reason i noticed that this might get a problem was due to the > unholy > > [...] > #[REQUIRED INFORMATION]# > [...] > % > % 2. Please provide a network diagram in PostScript or JPEG > % format showing your IPv6 network. Submission instructions > % can be found in the RIPE document "Supporting Notes for the > % Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service > % Region" found at: > % > % http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-support-initial.html > % > % The diagram should indicate expected completion dates of > % construction as well as how much IPv6 address space is > % expected to be used in each subnet. > % > > % > [...] > > in the (old and new) IPv6 Initial Allocation request form. > > Since it says "required information" there, i already assumed > that it might get a problem to get the IPv6 Allocation for us > without providing this one. > But i didn't see the point in doing so if i can make our network > plans clear in text form, and explain the reasons why a > network diagram for an IPv6 network is _completely_useless_ > in general at the moment and especially in our case. > > Though, even on my 2nd mail on that request i just got the reply from > some RIPE Hostmistress that "the inability to provide this > network topology map calls into question the need for the IPv6 > addresses being requested.". > > At the moment i'm really mad about this. > We are currently prevented from deploying IPv6 addresses immediately > because i don't have any Windows PC with Viso or something at > hand, let alone the time to paint a very useless topology of > our IPv6 overlay network, though i explained it in detail in > text. > (Not to mention that the statement that an active LIR which assigns > IPv4 addresses for years is questioned that it will assign > IPv6 addresses just because it doesn't like to waste time > on painting network maps of some routers and tunnels > is VERY doubiously to me.) > > Why the hell is such information _required_? > Information about what equipment being used and a network > topology map on a picture might be additional information at best. > > I fear that IP(v4) request will be denied or at least delayed in > future if the RIPE Hostmasters are gonna complain about missing > or unsatisfying information about the equipment in the future, too. > > That's not acceptable i think. > But i might be wrong, we're realatively small and don't have > that many requests in general, i just wonder why noone of the > "big LIRs" sees this problem? You all have AWs that big that > you don't care about filling in RIPE forms anyways and have payed > managers to paint network diagrams all day? *hint* :) > > > >Further, the term "peer" is used in a very unclear way in the ASN > > >request form and the supporting notes. > > > > > >Formerly, one uplink and one peer (commercial term) were enough to > > >justify an ASN, as this constitutes a "unique routing policy". The > > >ASN request form allows this interpretation of "peering partners" > > >with "peering" in the technical sense. BUT the supporting notes > > >specifically mention the requirement for two peers to "ensure that the > > >organisation is multihomed". For me, multihoming means to have at least > > >two _upstreams_. This would be a more stricter policy than before. > > >What was the real intention behind these phrases? These documents > > >should be very specific in the usage of "peer". It might be interpreted > > >technically or commercially, each implying different constraints. > > >I suggest changing the wording from "peer" to "upstream" in order to > > >avoid ambiguities. > > > > Again this is a good point. However I don't think that either term is > > appropriate for all situations. When writing these documents we used > > the word peer as we wanted to emphasise it was the routing policy which > > was important. > > So, the policy didn't change to "you have to have two _upstreams_ to > get an ASN" but it's only a language-confusion here? > > P.S.: I think this discussion belongs to the address-policy-wg, not > ncc-services-wg? Sorry for crossposting, remove the latter > in any replies if i'm right. > > -- > ========================================================================== > = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = > = NOC BayCIX GmbH = > = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = > ================================================================== > ======== > From Bovio at aol.com Mon Aug 25 14:33:10 2003 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:33:10 EDT Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: <117.2802a7a2.2c7b5c06@aol.com> In a message dated 22/08/03 18:44:28 W. Europe Daylight Time, woeber at cc.univie.ac.at writes: I am working from the assumption that the bigger community (RIPE - which includes the rep.s of the Members!) develops and agrees to the activity plan, the NCC Members approve and agree to paid the bills, and the managing director is expected to make it happen, with whatever it takes. Operationally, I always saw the Board as a "background" group, which focuses on keeping the safety belts in good working condition, and to take care of formal responsibilities of the Association, as well as providing guidance to the MD. At the time when I was on the Board, we were very reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day management of the NCC. As this is a memory of the past, things might have changed. Probably something the Board should comment on. Wilfried, A quite good summary, and yes, this is still the case: the board does not interfere with the day to day management of the NCC. Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao at psg.com Mon Aug 25 14:34:18 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:34:18 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <72236ABC-D6F8-11D7-A18E-000A959B2120@psg.com> I think this proposal is very good. On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 12:27 Europe/Amsterdam, DB-News wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > [apologies for duplicate messages] > > Following discussions at the RIPE NCC about a new Whois Database > object, > the organisation object, we have modified the previous proposal that > you > can find at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00013.html > > The main changes from the previous proposal are: > > - a "country:" attribute is added. > - "org-type:" and "org-name:" attributes are added, and > "organisation:" > attribute is now a NIC handle, which will be automatically assigned > during the creation of the object. The motivation for this is > explained > in Section 3 of the proposal. A very welcome modification. The last thing the RIPE DB needs to get dragged into are trade mark disputes about object names. Could it be made a bit stricter and allow only for auto-generation of organisation NIC handles? > - Hierarchical names can be removed, mainly for simplicity. I got lost on this one. Do you mean "can be removed" or "have been removed"? > - Differing query results on the whois server introduced in section 5. > According to this, the relevant organisation objects are appended > to the > query results (because the organisation that holds the resource is > at > least as important as the person/role objects mentioned in the > resource object). This is good. Also being able to disable it with '-r'. Will the database enforce any restrictions on the assignment of org-types, so that new IANAs and new RIRs can't be created, with potential for introducing confusion? I think this is a good proposal for an organisation object in the RIPE Database, Joao From engin at ripe.net Mon Aug 25 14:46:27 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:46:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <72236ABC-D6F8-11D7-A18E-000A959B2120@psg.com> References: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> <72236ABC-D6F8-11D7-A18E-000A959B2120@psg.com> Message-ID: <20030825124627.GA7986@x47.ripe.net> Hi Joao, On 2003-08-25 14:34:18 +0200, Joao Damas wrote: > I think this proposal is very good. > > On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 12:27 Europe/Amsterdam, DB-News wrote: > > > > >Dear Colleagues, > > > >[apologies for duplicate messages] > > > >Following discussions at the RIPE NCC about a new Whois Database > >object, > >the organisation object, we have modified the previous proposal that > >you > >can find at: > > > >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00013.html > > > >The main changes from the previous proposal are: > > > > - a "country:" attribute is added. > > - "org-type:" and "org-name:" attributes are added, and > >"organisation:" > > attribute is now a NIC handle, which will be automatically assigned > > during the creation of the object. The motivation for this is > >explained > > in Section 3 of the proposal. > > A very welcome modification. The last thing the RIPE DB needs to get > dragged into are trade mark disputes about object names. > Could it be made a bit stricter and allow only for auto-generation of > organisation NIC handles? Yes, this is actually the case. Quoting from Section 3 of the proposal: Organisation object IDs are auto-generated similar to the way person/role "nic-hdl:" attributes are auto-generated. The user has to specify the ID of an organisation object as ORG-AUTO- during creation of the object, then it will be assigned an appropriate ID. The organisation ID is assigned using the "org-name:" attribute of the object. The user can specify the letter combination he/she prefers. For example if the user wants TTR as the letter combination, in the organisation ID, then ORG-AUTO-1TTR should be put into "organisation:" attribute during the creation of the object. > > - Hierarchical names can be removed, mainly for simplicity. > > I got lost on this one. Do you mean "can be removed" or "have been > removed"? Oops, it's meant to be "have been removed". Sorry for that... > > - Differing query results on the whois server introduced in section 5. > > According to this, the relevant organisation objects are appended > >to the > > query results (because the organisation that holds the resource is > >at > > least as important as the person/role objects mentioned in the > >resource object). > > This is good. Also being able to disable it with '-r'. Right, this is also in the proposal: "This behaviour can be disabled by using the '-r' flag in the query." in Section 5. > > Will the database enforce any restrictions on the assignment of > org-types, so that new IANAs and new RIRs can't be created, with > potential for introducing confusion? Although this is not mentioned in the proposal, yes, the DB software will enforce restrictions. organisation objects with type IANA, RIR, NIR and LIR can only be created by the NCC. > > I think this is a good proposal for an organisation object in the RIPE > Database, > Joao Thanks a lot for feedback, Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From joao at psg.com Mon Aug 25 14:58:47 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:58:47 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030825124627.GA7986@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: Engin, >> A very welcome modification. The last thing the RIPE DB needs to get >> dragged into are trade mark disputes about object names. >> Could it be made a bit stricter and allow only for auto-generation of >> organisation NIC handles? > > Yes, this is actually the case. Quoting from Section 3 of the proposal: > > Organisation object IDs are auto-generated similar to the way > person/role > "nic-hdl:" attributes are auto-generated. The user has to specify > the ID of > an organisation object as ORG-AUTO- during creation of the > object, > then it will be assigned an appropriate ID. The organisation ID is > assigned > using the "org-name:" attribute of the object. The user can specify > the > letter combination he/she prefers. For example if the user wants > TTR as the > letter combination, in the organisation ID, then ORG-AUTO-1TTR > should be > put into "organisation:" attribute during the creation of the object. Yes, I read it, what I mean is whether you would consider eliminating the part about choosing letters. This is only an identifier and it would be good if people could think about it as just that, with no naming implications. > >> >> Will the database enforce any restrictions on the assignment of >> org-types, so that new IANAs and new RIRs can't be created, with >> potential for introducing confusion? > > Although this is not mentioned in the proposal, yes, the DB software > will enforce restrictions. organisation objects with type IANA, RIR, > NIR > and LIR can only be created by the NCC. Cool. One more question, though it is really not DB related in itself, but more policy: Will org objects be created when LIRs are created? If so, will existing LIRs automatically get an org object? Joao From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Mon Aug 25 15:42:46 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:42:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Proposed agenda Message-ID: <025D937C-D702-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> I am sorry for sending this out so late. Agenda for the NCC-Services-WG looks as follow though: Slot 1, Tuesday 2/9 14.00-15.30 ********************************** 1. Presenation from the RIPE NCC General NCC Service update Update from the Training Services Update on Database Services Update on Registration Services Update on New Projects 2. NCC Services WG charter (Kurtis) Slot 2, Thursday 4/9 11.00-12.30 *********************************** 3. Presentation on X.509 and certificates (Dirk-Willem van Gulik) - Discussions around the X.509 implementation of the RIPE NCC and what other RIRs have done. 4. (Main) Discussion & input time / Open Mike session (Kurtis) 5. Proposals from the community (Kurtis) Best regards, - kurtis - From engin at ripe.net Mon Aug 25 16:10:49 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:10:49 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20030825124627.GA7986@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030825141049.GC7986@x47.ripe.net> Hi, On 2003-08-25 14:58:47 +0200, Joao Damas wrote: [...] > >> > >>Will the database enforce any restrictions on the assignment of > >>org-types, so that new IANAs and new RIRs can't be created, with > >>potential for introducing confusion? > > > >Although this is not mentioned in the proposal, yes, the DB software > >will enforce restrictions. organisation objects with type IANA, RIR, > >NIR > >and LIR can only be created by the NCC. > > Cool. One more question, though it is really not DB related in itself, > but more policy: Will org objects be created when LIRs are created? If > so, will existing LIRs automatically get an org object? Yes, this is the idea. When organisation object is deployed, all LIRs will get an organisation object automatically (but the details must be worked out) and the new LIRs will get an organisation object as well, when they become an LIR (or, if already exists, their organisation object will be modified to have "LIR" in 'org-type:' attribute). Regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From dominic at ripe.net Tue Aug 26 12:57:13 2003 From: dominic at ripe.net (Dominic Spratley) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:57:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030826125314.03befe68@mailhost.ripe.net> Hi Christian, Sascha, You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list. We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy. This new set of forms is intended to reduce the burden on both the LIRs and the RIPE NCC. By reducing the administrative burden we hope to allow LIRs to access our services faster and improve the level of service we are able to offer. One of the ways we have attempted to reduce the burden on LIRs is by removing the Current Address Space Usage template in requests for IPv4 space. The template was fairly difficult for LIRs to complete. However, while the template has been replaced, the principle it represents - conservation - remains. That is why we ask whether the End Users has address space that can already meet the needs of this request. The situation with regard to address space that is being returned has not changed in these forms. We realise that many enterprises are not fully aware of the address space they use. To help LIR in these situations we have a Glimpse index of the database available. It can be found at: The LIR remains responsible for ensuring that assignments are justified and that address space that should be returned is returned. This remains the same. Nonetheless, LIRs must still ensure that the assignments they make are justified. That means that they need to gather appropriate justification. We introduced a template asking about the equipment being used by the End User to help us understand requests faster. We often received requests for fairly large amounts of address space for vaguely described "network devices" or "LAN segments". The information provided was not sufficient for us to evaluate the request. As such the Hostmaster would need to ask the LIR for additional information. This would delay the request. We hope that the introduction of this new template will help us evaluate requests more quickly and improve the level of service we offer you. It is possible to put "N/A" in the equipment template fields but the Hostmaster might need that information to understand your request and ask you to supply it. This would delay things for you. We understand that it may not always be possible to include useful information in this template. However, we believe that the template will have a broadly positive effect on the level of service we can offer. You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the RIPE NCC has not yet made yet 250 IPv6 allocations. Our experience with IPv6 networks is limited and we need network operators to show us how they intend to use IPv6 address space in their networks. Secondly, the current IPv6 policy does not allow stockpiling of IPv6 address space. One way of distinguishing a genuine request from one that is intended for stockpiling reasons is to request a diagram showing how the address space will be used. It doesn't have to be a a fancy diagram. It's also fine to fax a hand-drawn diagram instead of sending one by e-mail. When we have more experience with IPv6 I expect we will make the diagram optional. Finally, we agree with you that many LIRs are not aware of the difference between PA and PI address space. This is unfortunate and has several roots: many LIRs have a large number of staff that change regularly. Also, many people find the difference between PA and PI rather arcane and difficult to understand. We try to address the former issue through LIR Training Courses and by making policy documents clearer to read. We've made updates to all the RIPE community's policy documents over the last few months. The IPv4 policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for review by the community, now. It can be found at: We have also taken a look at the wording used to distinguish between PA and PI. We would like to make the distinction more apparent to the untrained eye. We have published initial proposals on changes to the status attribute value names and are co-ordinating with APNIC on this work. We hope to make it easier for everyone to understand the status of address space. There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more responsive to your needs than in the past. Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request process to make it easier and faster in the future. Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions. regards, Dominic Spratley, Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From slz at baycix.de Tue Aug 26 15:55:02 2003 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:55:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030826125314.03befe68@mailhost.ripe.net>; from dominic@ripe.net on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:57:13PM +0200 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030826125314.03befe68@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030826155502.H13657@mama.baycix.de> Hay, On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote: > Hi Christian, Sascha, > > You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them > for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide > services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list. > We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy. > > This new set of forms is intended to reduce the burden on both the LIRs and > the RIPE NCC. By reducing the administrative burden we hope to allow LIRs to > access our services faster and improve the level of service we are able to > offer. [...] of course. I want to apologize that noone noticed the _good_ changes but only the apparently "bad" ones.Though such things happen if you change something without discussing it BEFORE. I like those parts of the new form(s). Some silly or at least outdated questions have been removed, the complicated part of the Current Address Space Usage was reduced to a simple question ect. No doubt, that helps. > We introduced a template asking about the equipment being used by the End > User to help us understand requests faster. We often received requests for > fairly large amounts of address space for vaguely described "network > devices" or "LAN segments". The information provided was not sufficient for > us to evaluate the request. As such the Hostmaster would need to ask the LIR > for additional information. This would delay the request. We hope that the > introduction of this new template will help us evaluate requests more > quickly and improve the level of service we offer you. It is possible to put > "N/A" in the equipment template fields but the Hostmaster might need that > information to understand your request and ask you to supply it. This would > delay things for you. That's the only thing I wanted to hear, because it's not that clear in the supporting notes. So the information is OPTIONAL, one CAN provide it IF AVAILABLE and one can speed up a request by doing so. But it is not a REQUIREMENT if the rest of the request or the additional text information is clear enough. > We understand that it may not always be possible to include useful > information in this template. However, we believe that the template will > have a broadly positive effect on the level of service we can offer. Fine for me after this explaination. Probably the supporting notes should be more clear about that though. And if a customer explicitely denies detailed information about his equipment or network being revealed to RIPE, this must not be a reason for denying an Assignment either. And yes, such customers exist. > You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when > requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the [...] I'm going to answer this one seperately. > Finally, we agree with you that many LIRs are not aware of the difference > between PA and PI address space. This is unfortunate and has several roots: > many LIRs have a large number of staff that change regularly. Also, many > people find the difference between PA and PI rather arcane and difficult to > understand. We try to address the former issue through LIR Training Courses > and by making policy documents clearer to read. We've made updates to all > the RIPE community's policy documents over the last few months. The IPv4 > policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for > review by the community, now. It can be found at: > > > > We have also taken a look at the wording used to distinguish between PA and > PI. We would like to make the distinction more apparent to the untrained > eye. We have published initial proposals on changes to the status attribute > value names and are co-ordinating with APNIC on this work. We hope to make > it easier for everyone to understand the status of address space. I don't think changing words does help much here. "untrained eyes" without any knowledge about what they do don't understand the differences better just by using different terms. (Actually the new words do confuse a "trained eye" in this draft :-) More focus on having the LIRs train their staff better would be of more success in general in my eyes. [...rant about unassigned but used IP-Ranges and noone doing anything about it deleted...wrong place, wrong time...] > There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent > from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the > syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be > changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more > responsive to your needs than in the past. > Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request > process to make it easier and faster in the future. > Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get > reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and > the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions. Well, i just submitted my first ripe-283 (manually, the Web- thing didn't work right and resulted in an error after the "Address space returned?" page...), let's see what happens. The first thing i noticed is, the CIDR notation in the Address Space Usage section...sounds like a nice idea, but turns out being a bit messy. Especially if you need to count the totals manually. No fun, one can get blind from that :) I don't know how the LIR-portal thing handles it (most likely does the maths job?), but otherwise a small Tool for "addition of CIDR ranges" would be nice, not everyone got something like that at hand i think. So far, thanks for the clarifying answers. -- ========================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = NOC BayCIX GmbH = = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================== From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 26 21:33:57 2003 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:33:57 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Updated agenda Message-ID: <3C6871C6-D7FC-11D7-AA35-000A95880ECC@kurtis.pp.se> Slot 1, Tuesday 2/9 14.00-15.30 ********************************** 1. NCC Services WG charter (Kurtis) 2. RIPE NCC Services Direction - Service levels and activities 2004 3. RIPE NCC Information Services 4. Discussion & input time / Open Mic session Slot 2, Thursday 4/9 11.00-12.30 *********************************** 5. Presentation on X.509 and certificates (Dirk-Willem van Gulik) - Discussions around the X.509 implementation of the RIPE NCC and what other RIRs have done. 6. DNS Services - Modification Plans 7. Proposals from the community 8. Discussion & input time / Open Mic session From schuma at gaertner.de Wed Aug 27 07:07:05 2003 From: schuma at gaertner.de (Joerg Schumacher) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:07:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030826125314.03befe68@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <200308270507.h7R575tb005792@aunt.gaertner.de> Hi! >[...] The IPv4 >policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for >review by the community, now. It can be found at: > > >[...] > >There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent >from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the >syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be >changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more >responsive to your needs than in the past. Maybe I did get you wrong, but I don't think that the forms can be changed "on the fly". A quote from the draft: 6.1 Documentation for Assignments [...] The RIPE NCC provides forms for gathering the required information. The information requested in the forms must be collected by the LIR. [...] Nothing wrong with this, but if we are expected to follow the wording the forms have to be stable. >Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request >process to make it easier and faster in the future. >Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get >reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and >the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions. Looks like RIPE NCC gets a bit too webbish for us (as in the dilbert strip http://www.gaertner.de/~schuma/not-too-webbish.gif). What about providing a new autohm in ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/tools/ ? We use autohm for each assignment to meet the documentation requirement of the current policy: 5.1.1 Documentation [...] However, if a request needs to be approved by the RIPE NCC or if information is required in the event of an audit, the information must be submitted on a current version of the IPv4 Address Space Request Form available from [...] The IPv4 policy draft makes the need for autohm even clearer: [...] This is very important when an LIR makes assignments using its AW. If a request needs to be approved by the RIPE NCC or if information is required in the event of an audit, the information must be submitted on a current version of the request form found at: [...] Most of our assignments fall into the "using its AW" category. According to ripe-170 "Pro-active Audits of LIRs with little contact" should exist. Using autohm ensures that we could provide the documentation in the required format on the fly. Regards, Joerg From hank at att.net.il Wed Aug 27 22:03:19 2003 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:03:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030827213913.00aa6db0@max.att.net.il> At 10:35 AM 25-08-03 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Dear Hank, > > > > > And you do not see this a procedurally wrong? Wherever I work, whenever > > they want to do "something new", they need to write it up fully, indicate > > the budget and manpower needed and then submit to management. Based on > > that info, management can make an intelligent decision. > >I've seen this approach. I've also worked at places where the LOI/TDR >approach was used: the first document ("Letter of Intent") gave a global >outline of the activity, goals, deadlines, costs, manpower, etc. Only >when this was approved, a second document ("Technical Design Report") was >written discussing all the details. I personally believe that this >approach makes much more sense, why waste time/money to work out details >_before_ there is consensus that the activity should be persued in the >first place. I would have been very happy to see an LOI/TDR approach where a global outline would contain just costs and manpower. No such document on IRS has ever been presented. > > Instead, we have 1 paragraph describing what will be done in general and > > once the AP2004 is approved based on that, only then do we find out how > > much all this cost. > >This is not correct. There is indeed only one paragraph in the AP2004, >due to space constraints. However, there is also the strategy paper: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/hostcount.html A title of "RIPE NCC Hostcount in the 21st Century - A New Direction for Measurements by the RIPE NCC" does not give any indication of Incident Response content, sorry. Including security inside a hostcount document is wrong. I would have thought that the techseg-wg would be far more appropriate to discuss an Incident Response Service. >with more details about the IS activity. This paper was discussed at >RIPE45 and people have been invited to comment on this document on the >tt-wg at ripe.net list. Then the proposed budget: The test-Traffic WG, as per its charter states: "The purpose of the Test Traffic Measurements is to independently measure the performance parameters of the Internet using test traffic boxes located in the networks of participating ISP's. ... Although the working group was set up as a result of the test traffic project the scope of the group should allow any new performance measuring techniques to be included and proposals for such devices are most welcome. The data collected is analysed for the purpose of network trouble shooting, capacity planning and other such worthwhile reports. It is not the purpose of the working group to compare different ISP's network performance nor should the data be used for marketing purposes of any kind." Nothing about Incident Response. > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa97.html and > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa03.html > >does contain an estimated budget for this activity. No it does not! It contains an aggregated budget of 1.4Meuro for Information Services with no indication of manpower. In addition, Information Services, based on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ap2004.html includes from section 5: RIS, AMS, SCS, and IRS. There is *NO* way to know how much IRS will take in budget or manpower. >If you have any specific questions about the 2 documents mentioned above, >I suggest that we take them to the tt-wg at ripe.net list. I went thru the archives of the tt-wg and found nothing being discussed about Incident Response Service. The two above documents you list: RIPE NCC Budget 2004 has very little to do with the tt-wg and much more with the ncc-services WG. -Hank >Henk > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From joao at isc.org Thu Aug 28 10:08:25 2003 From: joao at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:08:25 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <004201c36d35$2f513010$a71d0cca@assanjaya> Message-ID: Sanjaya, On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 09:22 Europe/Amsterdam, Sanjaya wrote: > >> May be included in any other object type. It points to an >> existing organisation object representing the entity that >> holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of >> the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num >> objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with >> "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR >> NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and >> "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all >> other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. > > As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, > can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading > the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, > inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, > you get this response: > as a user of the DB, though I see the theoretical beauty of your proposal, I would rather have a concise definition in the inetnum object status attribute than a heap of output that will take some time to make sense of, not to mention having to scroll back and forth just to see the answer to a simple question. So I prefer the proposal as it is in this respect. Joao > % whois 192.168.86.251 > > inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 > netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 > descr: Sample network > registry: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE > custodian: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE > country: NL > admin-c: JE1-RIPE > tech-c: JE2-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > organisation: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE > org-name: RIPE NCC Operations > org-type: RIR > address: Singel 258 > address: 1016 AB Amsterdam > address: The Netherlands > country: NL > phone: +31 20 535 4444 > fax-no: +31 20 535 4445 > e-mail: ops at ripe.net > admin-c: AP110-RIPE > tech-c: OPS4-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE > org-name: Random Street Internet Services > org-type: LIR > descr: An example organisation > address: Random St. > address: The Netherlands > phone: +31 123 4567 > fax-no: +31 123 4568 > e-mail: contact at example-org.net > admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE > tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > person: John Example > nic-hdl: JE1-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > person: John Example Jr > nic-hdl: JE2-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > > Cheers, > Sanjaya > ______________________________________________________________________ > Senior Project Manager > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 > PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 > --- > _____________________________________________________________________ > _ > > From shane at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 10:25:56 2003 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:25:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <004201c36d35$2f513010$a71d0cca@assanjaya> References: <004201c36d35$2f513010$a71d0cca@assanjaya> Message-ID: <3F4DBC94.6000505@ripe.net> Sanjaya, Sanjaya wrote: > > While we understand the need for strict naming convention > to avoid name disputes, may I request that the rules and > convention will not be hard coded in the software but put > in a customisable config file. > As a user of RIPE's whois software, APNIC might want to have > a slightly different naming convention & rules :-) It should be fairly straightforward to modify the rules. However, without seeing specific requirements it is hard to be certain! ;) >>May be included in any other object type. It points to an >>existing organisation object representing the entity that >>holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of >>the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num >>objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with >>"ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR >>NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and >>"ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all >>other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. > > > As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, > can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading > the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, > inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, > you get this response: > > % whois 192.168.86.251 > > inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 > netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 > descr: Sample network > registry: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE > custodian: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE > country: NL > admin-c: JE1-RIPE > tech-c: JE2-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > organisation: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE This is indeed our thinking, or something very similar. However, we want to do one step at a time. We would like to add the organisation object first, and then introduce a new "status:" attribute and inetnum template to include a new reference to responsible organisation(s). I think this is especially important given the input from the community that we need to make these changes as useful as possible to the users. Getting a 10 page proposal with 3 or 4 big changes makes it difficult to see the important details, at least for me. :) -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC From sanjaya at apnic.net Thu Aug 28 09:22:49 2003 From: sanjaya at apnic.net (Sanjaya) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:22:49 +1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RE: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <004201c36d35$2f513010$a71d0cca@assanjaya> Hi all, > Specifies the ID of an organisation object. An organisation > ID is made up of 'ORG-' prefix, followed by 2 to 4 letters, > digits, a dash and is followed by the database source (in the > RIPE Whois Database this is 'RIPE'). For example: > > ORG-RT34-RIPE > > Note that all parts are mandatory, thus ORG-RT-RIPE would be > an invalid ID as it is missing the numeric part. While we understand the need for strict naming convention to avoid name disputes, may I request that the rules and convention will not be hard coded in the software but put in a customisable config file. As a user of RIPE's whois software, APNIC might want to have a slightly different naming convention & rules :-) > May be included in any other object type. It points to an > existing organisation object representing the entity that > holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of > the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num > objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with > "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR > NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and > "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all > other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, you get this response: % whois 192.168.86.251 inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 descr: Sample network registry: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE custodian: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE country: NL admin-c: JE1-RIPE tech-c: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE organisation: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE org-name: RIPE NCC Operations org-type: RIR address: Singel 258 address: 1016 AB Amsterdam address: The Netherlands country: NL phone: +31 20 535 4444 fax-no: +31 20 535 4445 e-mail: ops at ripe.net admin-c: AP110-RIPE tech-c: OPS4-RIPE [...] source: RIPE organisation: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE org-name: Random Street Internet Services org-type: LIR descr: An example organisation address: Random St. address: The Netherlands phone: +31 123 4567 fax-no: +31 123 4568 e-mail: contact at example-org.net admin-c: EXAM1-RIPE tech-c: EXAM2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example nic-hdl: JE1-RIPE [...] source: RIPE person: John Example Jr nic-hdl: JE2-RIPE [...] source: RIPE Cheers, Sanjaya ______________________________________________________________________ Senior Project Manager Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 ---_____________________________________________________________________ _ From av at nethead.de Thu Aug 28 10:32:26 2003 From: av at nethead.de (Arnd Vehling) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:32:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F4DBE1A.1060505@nethead.de> Joao Damas wrote: > as a user of the DB, though I see the theoretical beauty of your > proposal, I would rather have a concise definition in the inetnum > object status attribute than a heap of output that will take some time > to make sense of, not to mention having to scroll back and forth just > to see the answer to a simple question. I would suggest that the organisation object would not be shown as default if referenced. Actually i would like to see "-r" option behaviour as the default for the whois-server. I know that everyone can setup an alias for "whois" or modify the c-client but i think the whois-server should be tuned to the use of the every-day users of the database. Hence the ouput of referenced organisation and person objects doesnt make sense. Only show this objects of specifically requested by a user. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av at nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 K?ln Fax : +49 221 8809212 From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 10:32:58 2003 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:32:58 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] In-Reply-To: <00A24C6D.8DD0D07E.7@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <00A24C6D.8DD0D07E.7@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20030828083258.GO3547@reifa-wave.karrenberg.net> On 22.08 19:39, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Questions: > 1) can we have a more elaborate description from the NCC of what > activities are expected to be performed under this headline? ripe-271 says: "We will respond to Internet incidents and events that generate a lot of public interest, such as the Sapphire worm of 25.01.03, by providing objective and comprehensive data for use by the membership and the general public. http://www.ripe.net/ttm/worm/index.html" In other words: When something that generates interest happens we will expeditiously look at our measurement data, check what we see there, and publish a first analysis. We will keep doing this until the event is over and publish a final analysis. First examples of such reports are on the NCC web site. The most recent one being http://www.ripe.net/ttm/worm/nyc.html which is really a statement of "We saw nothing". This activity is triggered by numerous blatantly false guesses, often on the nanog list, which get wide press coverage and start to lead their own life. The one that pushed me to propose this was the one that made at least the NYT, Washington Post and "Der Spiegel" which said: "All root name servers were unreachable due to Sapphire"; this was based on a NANOG posting by someone doing pings to the roots from one location that was, lets say, neither well hardened nor well connected. I think it is in the Interest of the RIPE community to publish objective and verifyable data on such events and to develop confidence in it by journalists and public policy people in this data. I hope the RIPE community and the NCC membership agree. > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? Not yet. This needs to be hashed out between ncc-services, ttm and tech-sec. > Answers to these Qs would make it much easier for me to be in favor or > against :-) Let me know if there are further questions. Daniel From henk at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 13:40:00 2003 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:40:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030827213913.00aa6db0@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: Dear Hank, For your first question, please see Daniel's quote from RIPE271 and further text in his posting earlier today. > >with more details about the IS activity. This paper was discussed at > >RIPE45 and people have been invited to comment on this document on the > >tt-wg at ripe.net list. Then the proposed budget: > > The test-Traffic WG, as per its charter states: [...] Speaking as the former chair of the tt-wg: Formally speaking you are right, it is outside the charter of the TT-WG. However, after Daniel's presentation at RIPE45 and subsequent discussion, the question was raised where further comments on the topic could be posted. As the IS activity overlaps between at least 5 different WG's (tt, techsec, services, routing, DNS*) and none of them is exactly the right place for this discussion, we arbitrarily picked the tt-wg list. There haven't been that many postings on the topic as I'd hoped, but comments are still welcome. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 14:06:24 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:06:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <005c01c3672a$110d2f70$28e0a8c0@peteryw45760tp> Message-ID: > And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on > ongoing use of members funds ? strictly speaking it is not. You may also vote by proxy. > I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would > that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off > RIPE ? Mayby you should make such a proposal ? I think it is woth discussing. Hans Petter From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 14:41:03 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:41:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: In several countries there is allready a pulic registry of organisations with an existing organisation-number scheme. Would it be an idea to add an (optional) attribute to the object to include this number ? As an example Tiscali AS in Norway has the Organisation number 980616088 In Norway you could then do a lookup of the public http://www3.brreg.no/oppslag/enhet/detalj.jsp?orgnr=980616088 to track down the organisation/search for more updated inforamation. -hph From engin at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 15:42:17 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:42:17 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <200308251027.h7PARJWt018277@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030828134217.GF9712@x47.ripe.net> Hi Hans Petter, On 2003-08-29 14:41:03 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > In several countries there is allready a pulic registry of organisations > with an existing organisation-number scheme. > > Would it be an idea to add an (optional) attribute to the object to > include this number ? I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can be used to point users to web pages etc. Regards, -engin > As an example Tiscali AS in Norway has the Organisation number 980616088 > > In Norway you could then do a lookup of the public > http://www3.brreg.no/oppslag/enhet/detalj.jsp?orgnr=980616088 > to track down the organisation/search for more updated inforamation. > > -hph -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From nigel at titley.com Thu Aug 28 15:49:04 2003 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: 28 Aug 2003 14:49:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1062078543.3390.220.camel@magrat> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 13:06, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on > > ongoing use of members funds ? > > strictly speaking it is not. > You may also vote by proxy. > > > I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would > > that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off > > RIPE ? > > Mayby you should make such a proposal ? LINX has been using such a system for the past two meetings. I'm sure that the technology could be shared. > > I think it is woth discussing. > > Hans Petter > -- From nigel at titley.com Thu Aug 28 17:31:47 2003 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: 28 Aug 2003 16:31:47 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1062084707.3390.253.camel@magrat> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 13:06, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on > > ongoing use of members funds ? > > strictly speaking it is not. > You may also vote by proxy. > > > I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would > > that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off > > RIPE ? > > Mayby you should make such a proposal ? > > I think it is woth discussing. A couple of folks have asked me to expand on the legal aspects of the LINX electronic voting system. Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. My own view on the situation is that really the only voting that causes problems is the voting for the EB, and single transferable vote would be a much better system of doing this than the current arcane system which is potentially open to abuse. However, YMMV Nigel -- "This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up, there is no way at all": The Cat in the Hat. From azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es Thu Aug 28 18:01:11 2003 From: azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es (azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:01:11 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Enhancing members involvements in NCC-Services-WG and RIPE NCC General Meetings Message-ID: Dear colleagues , Some ideas have been circulating in various emails aiming for a bigger involvement of RIPE NCC members in both the NCC Services WG and the Annual General Meeting that, in my view, deserve consideration. I support the following ones: 1) Active Participation On-line: As far as I know the last RIPE meeting in Barcelona offered a webcast facility in one meeting room for the first time. I support the continuation of this service (in all meeting rooms) and its proper visibility to invite members unable to attend in person to do it remotely. I propose in addition some means to allow contributions to the open microphone sessions from remote attendants: either by phone (multiconference), by instant messaging and/or email. Proper consideration should be given to the remote contributions as much as those made "in person" in the meeting room. 2) Decision Making Tools On-line: RIPE NCC members interested on participating in the voting of items that affect them but unable for one or other reason to attend the Annual General Meetings should be given some more facilities than voting by proxy. Nowadays it is quite difficult to find 2 companies that have the same view on everything and therefore it's unlikely that a RIPE NCC member feels attracted to give its proxy to another one. If we believe on the services that we provide to our customers over Internet we can use them as well. Many international bodies have well established methods of approval on-line quite easy to implement. I propose that RIPE NCC sets up one in 2004. 3) More than one "Member type" for RIPE NCC: Some voices are expressing doubts about the cost/benefits regarding the RIPE NCC services that are not strictly related to IP registration. When my company joined RIPE NCC (3 years ago) these kind of services where already offered and we accepted them as a "bonus" on top of the pure registration services. The extra costs associated with these services impacts in our membership fee, that's true but, as it has not reached a painful threshold yet, we don't complain. I must say that we don't use the addtional services that much, but....... here there are just in case. It seems that the impact of the cost of the additional services is already painful for other RIPE NCC members. I must clearly say that if this trend of increasing the services provided reaches in the future a level that we consider unreasonable, we will complain as well. In the light of the previous words, I think that it is worth considering the possibility to set up 2 level of membership for RIPE NCC (in parallel to the present split by size) depending on the services required: - Basic RIPE NCC member: only registration services - Full RIPE NCC member: registration services + additional services Maintaining this "double membership" approach will cost some money for administrative tasks that will require consideration and cost/benefit analysis before moving further but I think that it is worth studying it. 4) Installing a fallback decision making procedure in addition to consensus for RIPE NCC WG: Consensus is the best decision making procedure and should be the preferred one in this new WG as much as it is the only one in the other WGs of RIPE. Having said that and considering that the decisions taken in this WG will probably have direct financial implications for the members, it is very likely that consensus is never achieved as the points of view differ. I think it is necessary to set up a fallback decision making procedure when consensus is not achieved in order to make progress. Voting rules as those applicable in the AGM may be considered. I would like to get these ideas debated in the next RIPE meeting. Regrettably I would not be able to be in Amsterdam as the RIPE meeting overlaps with another one that I have to attend in ETSI, but if the chairman of the NCC Services WG and/or the chairman of the AGM are so kind to input these ideas into the debates, I would be grateful. By the way, I still have some problems identifying where to accomodate these issues, whether in the NCC Services WG (for the services) or in the AGM (for the associated impact on budget and fees) as services and budget are always linked. Finally I have a question to make. Is this email list (ncc-services-wg) only available for RIPE NCC members? I guess so but I am not sure. Please confirm. Kind regards, Azucena ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener informaci?n privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilizaci?n, divulgaci?n y/o copia sin autorizaci?n est? prohibida en virtud de la legislaci?n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v?a y proceda a su destrucci?n. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________ From chr at jay.net Thu Aug 28 18:43:47 2003 From: chr at jay.net (Christian Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:43:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Hans, The question is how complex an evaluation must be? The facts needed to evaluate a normal IP requests are simply the number of nodes needing a public IP address. In case one or more nodes needs more than 1 IP address then documentation is needed to explain why to exceed the normal rules, also in case the expected growth pr. year exceeds 100%. It would of course be easier to falsify the number of nodes than to falsify the documentation, but in case an end user intends to falsify information in order to get more IP addresses than justifyable, then I don't see any easy way to prevent this. But is there actually any other reasons for extensive documentation? Who benefits from the work all LIRs are obligated to perform by gathering this documentation? If normal requests did not need any documentation it would make it MUCH easier for all LIRs and of course for the customers who would not need to take the time to answer a lot of complex questions. If you as an end user only had to document your needs in case you were trying to get more IP addresses than normal justifyable, then it would probably also discourage a lot of the unserious requests. I would find it reasonable if larger requests still required some form of documentation, for example /24 and above. But it would of course still be very important for all LIRs to stress that the information received from the enduser must be correct. This proposal probably goes against one of the basic goals; conservation, but is it reasonable to spend so many ressources on conserving IP addresses when we actually don't have any immediate problem? Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc at jay.net Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen > Sent: 29. august 2003 12:52 > To: Sascha Lenz > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: > updated and available on LIR Portal > > > > BUT... information like the equipment being used or a network > > plan or so _must_ be optional information, not _required_ information. > > It can't be that a company is _required_ to make statements about > > their network and equipment if they want to have IP-Adresses! > > (and no, RIPE doesn't always qualify for receiving such information). > > This indeed an interesting point of view. It has been the practice for as > long as I can remember for the RIPE NCC to ask for documnetation for the > need for IP addresses. > > Is there strong support in the community to remove this cirteria ? > > If not, how should the LIR/RIR verify this criteria ? > > Best Regards, > > Hans Petter > > From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 19:17:54 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:17:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030828134217.GF9712@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > be used to point users to web pages etc. I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name changes. Hans Petter From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 19:29:34 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:29:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: > Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out > of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being > worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the > RIPE NCC can probably give you more details.> Folks,> Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as possible > to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic voting is > not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is the only viable > form. > > Cheers>,Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> Message-ID: > In a message dated 20/08/03 17:34:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, > kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: > Daniele > From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 19:34:08 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <180.1e9d6db2.2c752178@aol.com> Message-ID: > Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as possible > to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic voting is > not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is the only viable > form. I can see several ways around this: - In Norway public votes on important questions (like joining the EU or not) does not have a legal foundation - they are only advisory to the parlament. We could make advisory electronic votes to advice the board on important matters (like the activity plan). But the legal responsiblity may still lie with the AGM or the Board (depending on desicions) - Are there other european countries where electronic voting is permitted ? If so, theese options could be explored. -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Fri Aug 29 19:52:37 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I've seen this approach. I've also worked at places where the LOI/TDR > approach was used: the first document ("Letter of Intent") gave a global > outline of the activity, goals, deadlines, costs, manpower, etc. Only > when this was approved, a second document ("Technical Design Report") was > written discussing all the details. I personally believe that this > approach makes much more sense, why waste time/money to work out details > _before_ there is consensus that the activity should be persued in the > first place. Maybe we should adapt this kind of procedure ? At some time prior to making the plan LOIs are circulated to the list/members for support. When there is sufficient support for the proposal it will be included in the activity plan The result would be a RIPE NCC activity plan established trough comunity consensus rather than the RIPE NCC management proposed activity plan. -hph From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 20:51:48 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:51:48 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <1062084707.3390.253.camel@magrat> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030828204742.02662b50@localhost> At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the >chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote >as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and >it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle. Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup. cheers, Axel From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 21:02:29 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:02:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Enhancing members involvements in NCC-Services-WG and RIPE NCC General Meetings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030828210041.02600a50@localhost> Thank you Azucena for your ideas, I'll make sure that I pick them up next week. At 28/08/2003 18:01 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es wrote: >Finally I have a question to make. Is this email list (ncc-services-wg) >only available for RIPE NCC members? I guess so but I am not sure. Please >confirm. No, this working group is open to the whole community, as many RIPE NCC services are not restricted to the membership. I'm sorry that we won't see you next week. kind regards, Axel From nigel at titley.com Fri Aug 29 00:07:55 2003 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: 28 Aug 2003 23:07:55 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030828204742.02662b50@localhost> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030828204742.02662b50@localhost> Message-ID: <1062108474.9054.12.camel@woden> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 19:51, Axel Pawlik wrote: > At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > >Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the > >chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote > >as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and > >it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. > > Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not > recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the > GM. And like *I* said before, neither does the UK, which is why we use the scheme of allowing the electronic vote to instruct the Chairman how to exercise the proxy. I can't see why this wouldn't work in the Netherlands. > > That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for > other purposes. We should however consider carefully > where and why we would want to depart from the consensus > principle. We currently don't use consensus in the AGM, (which is what is under discussion). > Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR > collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup > they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting > to get a look at the LINX setup. > > > cheers, Axel -- Nigel Titley From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Fri Aug 29 08:24:03 2003 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:24:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks In-Reply-To: <1062108474.9054.12.camel@woden> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030828204742.02662b50@localhost> <5.2.0.9.2.20030828204742.02662b50@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030829082249.0260ead0@localhost> >And like *I* said before, neither does the UK, which is why we use the >scheme of allowing the electronic vote to instruct the Chairman how to >exercise the proxy. I can't see why this wouldn't work in the >Netherlands. I'll see what the NCC lawyers think, and report next week. Axel From azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es Fri Aug 29 08:48:03 2003 From: azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es (azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:48:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Message-ID: On the issue of electronic voting, I add the following information: - "voting by correspondence" is legally identical that "voting by presence" in Spain in all kind of elections. For the time being the way of implementing the voting by correspondence is by traditional postal services but the change into electronic voting is under study. - the officially recognised European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) legally established in France implements the following voting procedures: a) for the approval of standards: ONLY online approval and therefore no proxies allowed. b) for decisions taken by the Board: voting during Board meetings and ALSO online voting when the decision can not be postponed till the next Board meeting. No proxies allowed. c) for decisions taken by the General Assembly (similar to the RIPE NCC AGM): voting by presence and by proxy. Voting by correspondence is legally considered in the Statutes but is has never been implemented. In addition to the previous methods all legally valid, ETSI uses very often what we call "indicative voting" which is similar to the "show of hands" in a meeting but electronically. It is a useful way of getting views from people that are normally silent in the email debates but have, nevertheless, a view when they face a specific question to which they must say "yes" or "no". Kind regards, Azucena Axel Pawlik Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin at ripe.net 28/08/03 20:51 Para: Nigel Titley , ncc-services-wg at ripe.net cc: Asunto: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Clasificaci?n: Uso Interno At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the >chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote >as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and >it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle. Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup. cheers, Axel ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener informaci?n privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilizaci?n, divulgaci?n y/o copia sin autorizaci?n est? prohibida en virtud de la legislaci?n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v?a y proceda a su destrucci?n. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________ From sanjaya at apnic.net Fri Aug 29 00:20:17 2003 From: sanjaya at apnic.net (Sanjaya) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:20:17 +1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RE: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <3F4DBC94.6000505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000901c36db2$8f9b45f0$0f00a8c0@assanjaya> > > While we understand the need for strict naming convention > > to avoid name disputes, may I request that the rules and > > convention will not be hard coded in the software but put > > in a customisable config file. > > As a user of RIPE's whois software, APNIC might want to have > > a slightly different naming convention & rules :-) > > It should be fairly straightforward to modify the rules. > However, without seeing specific requirements it is hard > to be certain! ;) Thanks Shane, we can discuss the specific requirements off the list, and we'd be happy to be involved in the design & development of the code. > This is indeed our thinking, or something very similar. > However, we want to do one step at a time. We would like to add the > organisation object first, and then introduce a new "status:" attribute and > inetnum template to include a new reference to responsible organisation(s). > > I think this is especially important given the input from the > community that we need to make these changes as useful as possible to > the users. > Getting a 10 page proposal with 3 or 4 big changes makes it > difficult to see the important details, at least for me. :) I see your point. No worries, we can discuss this later. We're quite happy with the proposal as it is :-) Cheers, Sanjaya From sanjaya at apnic.net Fri Aug 29 01:11:46 2003 From: sanjaya at apnic.net (Sanjaya) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:11:46 +1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RE: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c36db9$c0884800$a71d0cca@assanjaya> > >> "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR > >> NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and > >> "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all > >> other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. > > > > As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, > > can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading > > the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, > > inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, > > you get this response: > > > > as a user of the DB, though I see the theoretical beauty of your > proposal, I would rather have a concise definition in the inetnum > object status attribute than a heap of output that will take > some time to make sense of, not to mention having to scroll back and > forth just to see the answer to a simple question. So I prefer the > proposal as it is in this respect. > > Joao Thanks Joao. After thinking about it, I agree that it is more important to have a concise whois response. It's just the *-BY-IANA/RIR/LIR in the status attribute that bugs me as we have the org-type attribute in the organisation object that 'begs' to be used :-) But that's a minor point really. I'm happy to support the proposal. Cheers, Sanjaya From k13 at nikhef.nl Fri Aug 29 09:57:09 2003 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:57:09 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > > be used to point users to web pages etc. > > I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify > the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within > the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry > number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name > changes. Idon't agree. Probably it is tru for the 15 EU countries. Wether it is true for the 91 countries in the RIPE NCC region - I don't know. Rob > > Hans Petter > From azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es Fri Aug 29 09:59:43 2003 From: azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es (azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:59:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal Message-ID: I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional identification of each organisation by a number making it a separate object in the database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU countries. Azucena Hans Petter Holen Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin at ripe.net 29/08/03 19:17 Para: Engin Gunduz cc: Hans Petter Holen , DB-News , , Asunto: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal Clasificaci?n: Uso Interno > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > be used to point users to web pages etc. I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name changes. Hans Petter ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener informaci?n privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilizaci?n, divulgaci?n y/o copia sin autorizaci?n est? prohibida en virtud de la legislaci?n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v?a y proceda a su destrucci?n. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________ From engin at ripe.net Fri Aug 29 10:40:43 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:40:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030829084043.GE22025@x47.ripe.net> On 2003-08-29 09:59:43 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es wrote: > I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional identification > of each organisation by a number making it a separate object in the The org-ID in the "organisation:" attribute will already make it a separate object. The org-ID is unique. Also, it will not change even when the name of the organisation changes. > database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU > countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other > national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU > countries. The problem I see here is: This number will mean very little to the whois users outside the EU. If somebody puts any kind of number which is meaningful only in the organisation's country, then an explanation of what that number is, and how it can be used, must be put in a "remarks:" attribute. Thus a "remarks:" attribute is already required?? > Azucena > > > > > > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > > > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > > > be used to point users to web pages etc. > > > > I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify > > the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within > > the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry > > number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name > > changes. See above. > > > > Hans Petter Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From randy at psg.com Fri Aug 29 10:45:48 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:45:48 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal References: <20030828134217.GF9712@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: > I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify > the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within > the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry > number. most countries in the world do. randy From engin at ripe.net Fri Aug 29 11:44:26 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:44:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] another attribute for organisation object Message-ID: <20030829094426.GF22025@x47.ripe.net> Dear colleagues, >From the feedback we've got, it looks like we want another attribute in the organisation object, in which users can put an "organisation number" or an "organisation-id". This can be a VAT number, or a number assigned by a certain Chamber of Commerce, or any kind of other ID. We would propose calling it "business-id:". We have thought of "org-id:" but the org-ID is the string we will have in "organisation:" attribute, so calling another attribute "org-id:" would be confusing. "national-id:" would have been another idea, but some IDs might not be a national one, like an ID assigned uniquely in the EU. So the proposal is to add business-id: [optional] [multiple] as a new attribute. It is optional, as an organisation might not have such an ID. It is multiple, because an organisation might have multiple such IDs. Thanks and best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Fri Aug 29 11:55:52 2003 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:55:52 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030829084043.GE22025@x47.ripe.net> References: <20030829084043.GE22025@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: At 10:40 +0200 29/8/03, Engin Gunduz wrote: > >> database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU >> countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other >> national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU >> countries. > >The problem I see here is: This number will mean very little to the whois >users >outside the EU. If somebody puts any kind of number which is meaningful >only in the organisation's country, then an explanation of what that number >is, and how it can be used, must be put in a "remarks:" attribute. Thus >a "remarks:" attribute is already required?? and in addition it is possible for an organisation to: a Not have a VAT number b Not be willing to make their VAT number public, I have a couple of clients who only hand that information out to organisations that have a need to know the number for tax reclamation purposes. Whereas they would be happy for the NCC to have the number for billing purposes they would not be happy allowing it into the public domain in the dB. f From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Fri Aug 29 14:23:57 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:23:57 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal References: Message-ID: <001d01c36e28$6bd69cc0$24e0a8c0@HATMADDER> Hans Petter Holen wrote: > I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely > identify the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all > countries within the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or > public registry number. The good thing is that it stays unique and > lives trough name changes. No, that is incorrect. In the UK (certainly England) you do *not* have to register or have a license to trade as an organisation as long as you do not trade in a deceptive way; i.e. I can set myself up now (without asking anyone for permission) to trade as "The Small Fluffy Kitten Consulting Company" and then I am done. For tax purposes I am then classed as a "sole trader". No other differences. I (and others) have been having this argument with RIPE (hi Daniel...) for many years - in the "old" days you had to provide a copy of your "Chamber of Commerce certificate". Er, closed box thinking ? Peter From md at ncuk.net Fri Aug 29 10:10:56 2003 From: md at ncuk.net (Sebastien Lahtinen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:10:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es wrote: > I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional > identification of each organisation by a number making it a separate > object in the database. I am in favor using the VAT number for > organisations in EU countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing > countries and any other national registration number for those > organisations established in non-EU countries. Not all UK businesses are VAT registered. Also, businesses can be unincorporated, sole traders, etc. so they won't necessarily have "company numbers" either. Attempting to number them using any generic criteria won't work. If you want to do this, you'll have to complicate the database/criteria significantly. 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 ula at ripn.net Fri Aug 29 11:32:07 2003 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa A. Yurkina) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:32:07 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030829084043.GE22025@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030829131753.A98736-100000@capral.ripn.net> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Engin Gunduz wrote: > On 2003-08-29 09:59:43 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez at telefonica.es wrote: > > I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional identification > > of each organisation by a number making it a separate object in the > > The org-ID in the "organisation:" attribute will already make it a > separate object. The org-ID is unique. Also, it will not change > even when the name of the organisation changes. > > > database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU > > countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other > > national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU > > countries. > > The problem I see here is: This number will mean very little to the whois users > outside the EU. If somebody puts any kind of number which is meaningful > only in the organisation's country, then an explanation of what that number > is, and how it can be used, must be put in a "remarks:" attribute. Thus > a "remarks:" attribute is already required?? In Russia we already use unique VAT numbers in the domain names db which includes "organisation:" objects. In case it is also used in the RIPE db we'll have double option to easily find ips if there are any. > > > Azucena > > > > > > > > > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > > > > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > > > > be used to point users to web pages etc. > > > > > > I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify > > > the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within > > > the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry > > > number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name > > > changes. > > See above. > > > > > > > Hans Petter > > Best regards, > -- > Engin Gunduz > RIPE NCC Database Group > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center ----- From emma.apted at psineteurope.com Fri Aug 29 16:20:57 2003 From: emma.apted at psineteurope.com (Emma Apted) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:20:57 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: <3F4DBE1A.1060505@nethead.de> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030829151051.038881b0@mail.psineteurope.com> At 09:32 28/08/2003, Arnd Vehling wrote: > I would suggest that the organisation object would not be shown as default > > if referenced. Actually i would like to see "-r" option behaviour as > the default > > for the whois-server. I agree with this. When I first starting using more arguments for "whois" I found it surprising that "-r" turned *off* recursion rather than turning it on. Don't most other UNIX programs work that way? However some people use whois to find out contact details in the event of spam complaints. We'd need to ensure the correct abuse email addresses were in the first main object returned by a query or advertise the "-r" option in more places. Emma -- Emma Apted Peering Co-ordinator, Engineering & Standards PSINet Europe From james at now.ie Fri Aug 29 17:36:07 2003 From: james at now.ie (James Raftery) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:36:07 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030829153607.GE63249@bender.kerna.ie> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:10:56AM +0100, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote: > Attempting to number them using any generic criteria > won't work. If you want to do this, you'll have to complicate the > database/criteria significantly. I agree. For an 'organisation number' to be useful, the attribute will need to include some text to identify _what_ the number represents, be it a VAT no., company registration number or any of the myriad registration schemes & numbers for clubs, companies, partnerships, etc. in each country. We already have such a field for free text. It's ``remarks:''. Regards, james