This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] RIPE50 - NCC Services WG Draft Minutes
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Fwd: [local-ir at ripe.net]Deadline for input to RIPE NCC Membership Survey 2005
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] RIPE50 - NCC Services WG Draft Minutes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bijal Sanghani
bijal.sanghani at sohonet.co.uk
Mon Jun 27 12:59:07 CEST 2005
Dear All,
Please see draft minutes from the NCC Services Working Group at RIPE
50. Please send any questions, comments or clarifications to Kurtis,
myself or this
mailing list.
regards,
Bijal
----
RIPE NCC Services Working Group Agenda
Date: Thursday, 5 May 2005
Time: 16:00 - 17:00
Room: Plenary Room
A. Administrative Matters
* Welcome
* Select a Scribe
* Distribute Participants List
* Finalise Agenda
* Approve Minutes: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/ncc-services/r49-
minutes.html
B. Report from the RIPE NCC - Axel Pawlik
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-serv-
ncc-new.pdf
Axel noted that the reporting on the RIPE NCC would not be repeated
in the General Meeting, scheduled to take place at 17:00.
Registration Services
Training
Engineering
New Projects
Coordination
Communications
Membership Relations
External Relations
There were no questions.
C. New LIR Survey - Results and Feedback - Paul Rendek (RIPE NCC)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-
services-new-lir.pdf
There were no questions.
D. A New Version of the Hostcount
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-serv-
hostcount.pdf
RIPE NCC
Timur requests feedback on the value of this service.
Questions:
Kurtis asks how many are using this whois data? Counts...yes, a few
people using this data.
Anyone has any comments about proposed changes?
+/- 49 mins...
Lars-Johan Liman (Netnod):
Are you going to use this host query all over?
Timur: Yes.
Lars-Johan Liman - Netnod: Because I noticed some problems with some
transfers. So it should be configured to provide one answer instead
of many answers.... so this is about the zone transfer format.
Timur: Thank you for this. We are going to review all the projects
and maybe will modify the hostcount programme itself and maybe we
should do a DNS as a backend which may be better.
Peter: I want to respond on the remark made by the previous gentleman
The host programme is showing its age and the sad fact is that the
author has passed away a couple of years ago and the program itself
has been orphaned. There are some problems in dealing with the new
style referrals. It would be useful to have that located at a well-
known place, one of which could be the RIPE NCC. And I would be
willing to contribute. As before I didn't do the coding, but it
would be useful to develop that not only for the host count, but for
DNS debugging as well.
Timur: Well, we promised to provide a DIY kit. We will come with a
replacement on modified version of software. And your input would be
much appreciated.
Souissi Mohsen - AFNIC: I browsed through the site and randomly did
some cctld's to find out about things. I was pleasantly surprised
that there are detail on every cctld.
But i am quite worried about the relevance of these figures. For
example the zone count. if these figures are to be used somewhere
maybe there is a column missing - the estimate of error. is there
mathematical way to estimate that. And do a disclaimer for people
using these figures?
Timur: Well, there is a disclaimer there,
Souissi Mohsen - AFNIC: Because the figures are, in some parts, very
far from the reality
Timur: We understand that, so that's why we are not claiming that
it's something really precise.
Souissi Mohsen - AFNIC: Thank you anyway.
Rob Blokzijl: BTW the first hostcount counted 7200 hosts. But that
was never published.
Comment: I was one of the few who raised their hand when you asked
whether people were using it or whether it is useful. I think its
extremely useful because it is one of the few long term efforts to
measure something of the internet in a consistent way. It is more of
a trans measurement than absolutely numbers. I would like to see
some sort of continuation of this and I think its important that
potential users understand what it is . What it is that you measure,
what the conditions are and yes, its difficult to give error
estimates, but people should use it as one of the few reliable trend
figures. You can see trends in many publications, but most are based
on nothing and if you take any given moment in time, you have a rich
choice of various trends, like the internet is not growing anymore or
the internet is exploding but at least this measures something that
is definied and is not a hostcount as the name suggests, but you are
measuring someting in a consistent way for many years, so you can
draw some conclustions and I think that is the value.
Person from Vienna: I wholly support this project and I am very
pleased to see that there is further work being done on this. i
would just like to ask if, for the reverse dns counts may lirs
volunteer to reform the divulged counts in the same way that some of
us volunteerd to perfom forward counts for the country codes?
Timnur: That's perfect. We would like to see a participation.
Thanks a lot.
Bruce Campbell: with what you said about the accuracy - if you see
the graph on the screen there is a section that says zones blocked
etc. that is the closest that you will get to seeing this is how
inaccurate the figures are, because for every zone where we got a
block, we have a completely unknown number of hosts that we couldn't
count, which is why we started collecting the reverse count because
its much easier to ennumerate through the reverse zones and not
necessarily forward. the downside is that people generally don't
populate the reverse zones. so if you have reverse zones, its
putting them in dns is good. its yet another trend. its purely a
trend thing with no relation to realiity.
Timur: Thank you
Peter Kock - denic (one of the starting points into hostzone and long
time support and i appreciate the effort and would like to see it
continue). I appreciate your new considerations of acceptable use
and really, there is no acceptable use. the raw data is no longer
shipped, which is probably one of the pre-conditions for the cctld
registries to continue support for this project. This is really
important and we should talk about that.
Timur: Thank you.
Out of time, so no open microphone.
Y. Open Microphone
Z. AOB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20050627/af8cf468/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Fwd: [local-ir at ripe.net]Deadline for input to RIPE NCC Membership Survey 2005
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] RIPE50 - NCC Services WG Draft Minutes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]