From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Oct 2 12:30:48 2005 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:30:48 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charging for PI space? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20051002131247.0577b6d8@efes.iucc.ac.il> I'd like renew the discussion of PI address space and how it affects ones' RIPE category: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-331.html Suppose a LIR was asked by a customer to acquire PI address space (/22) and the customer had justification for requesting it. What do LIRs charge the customer for doing this work and therefore increasing their "billing score" for one year? Regards, Hank From ruud at ripe.net Tue Oct 4 08:44:39 2005 From: ruud at ripe.net (Ruud de Kooter) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:44:39 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Service Interruption on 29 September Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051003165533.035b5d78@localhost> Dear Colleagues, As we announced on 29 September, there was an unexpected disruption to our whois and web services between 05:10 and 06:00 UTC. Our investigations have shown that the problem was caused by an increasing traffic load and a growing number of peers on one of our routers. We made some configuration changes to improve load balancing between our border routers. This should prevent any similar problems from occurring in the future. We apologise for any disruption or delay this may have caused. If you have any further questions about this matter, please send an e-mail to . Regards Ruud de Kooter RIPE NCC From laura at ripe.net Wed Oct 5 17:53:31 2005 From: laura at ripe.net (Laura Cobley) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:53:31 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Improved wording for request forms Message-ID: <20051005175331.7d963cf5.laura@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of four updated RIPE documents. We have improved the wording of these documents without changing the actual content of the request forms. This will make the request forms easier to use. These changes are part of a project to improve the wording of all request forms and supporting notes. The following RIPE documents have been edited: ripe-354 AS Number Request Form ripe-355 Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form ripe-356 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form ripe-357 Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form You can find the Documents in HTML format at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/asnrequestform.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/asnsupport.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/pi-requestform.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/pi-requestsupport.html Regards, Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC From laura at ripe.net Wed Oct 5 17:53:31 2005 From: laura at ripe.net (Laura Cobley) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:53:31 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [local-ir@ripe.net]Improved wording for request forms Message-ID: <20051005175331.7d963cf5.laura@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of four updated RIPE documents. We have improved the wording of these documents without changing the actual content of the request forms. This will make the request forms easier to use. These changes are part of a project to improve the wording of all request forms and supporting notes. The following RIPE documents have been edited: ripe-354 AS Number Request Form ripe-355 Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form ripe-356 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form ripe-357 Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form You can find the Documents in HTML format at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/asnrequestform.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/asnsupport.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/pi-requestform.html http://www.ripe.net/docs/pi-requestsupport.html Regards, Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC From andrei at ripe.net Thu Oct 6 14:21:27 2005 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:21:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Updated Hostcount++ proposal Message-ID: <434516C7.6000702@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Please find below an updated proposal for Hostcount++. Hostcount ++ is a set of enhancements to the hostcount service that the RIPE NCC has been running for 15 years. The Hostcount++ concept was presented at RIPE 50: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-serv-hostcount.pdf The general feedback was positive, and there were some follow-up discussions. For examples of these discussions see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2005/msg00046.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2005/msg00051.html The Hostcount ++ proposal has been refined based on this feedback. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. The RIPE NCC will make a short update on this project at the RIPE NCC Services Working Group at RIPE 51. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC Hostcount++ for the RIPE NCC Service Region =========================================== Motivation ---------- Every month the RIPE NCC coordinates the collection of data from the DNS zones of ccTLDs in the RIPE NCC Service Region and publishes summary statistics derived from this data. The first hostcount was in October 1990 and involved 19 ccTLDs. Since then, the hostcount has expanded to include around 100 ccTLDs. The hostcount is provided as an informational service to the Internet community. The current implementation of the Hostcount has several problems: - Connectivity problems with certain hosts - Lack of data accuracy due to access policies of some ccTLD domains - The increasing number of domains There are also issues related to privacy and acceptable use of the results. Objectives and Deliverables --------------------------- 1) To increase the precision and reliability of data, especially for trend analysis, more sources will be added. Our final aim is to collect data from: - Forward DNS - Reverse DNS - BGP view on availability of prefixes 2) Re-designing the software to be more scalable is very important, since the amount of input to be analysed is already of considerable size and is increasing every day. 3) To protect the privacy of domain holders and data, the following changes will be made: - Use cases will be defined in more detail and "Acceptable Use Policy" documents will be written accordingly. - Raw data will not be made available. 4) The following information will be made available, via textual dumps and graphs and tables on the web site: - Average visibility of RIPE NCC allocations: Visibility will be calculated by the information provided from the Routing Information Service (RIS) project. - Number of hosts and Average number of hosts: Host information will be retrieved via zone transfers. If the zone transfers fail due to blocking, partial zone information will be generated from reverse scan. Blocked zone transfers will be constructed by enumeration of the zones. - Breakdown of DNS record types: This information will depend on zone transfers of each allocation. 5) Results will be sorted into: - visible/invisible: This is based on whether a given IP range has been announced in the preceding month for longer than a particular threshold. - ccTLDs: This is based on the ccTLDs in the RIPE NCC service region. - RIPE NCC allocations: These are the allocations made by the RIPE NCC for its members. - IANA allocations: These are the /8 ranges for IPv4, and /23 ranges IPv6, allocated to the RIPE NCC. 6) In addition, timestamps of the results will be more consistent. 7) Hostcounts for certain ccTLDs will be performed locally by contributors. We look forward to increasing the number of contributors to distribute the load of the overall process. 8) Resulting software will be open-source, enabling a do-it-yourself kit for local statistics gathering. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu Oct 6 15:48:53 2005 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:48:53 +0200 (IST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Updated Hostcount++ proposal In-Reply-To: <434516C7.6000702@ripe.net> References: <434516C7.6000702@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > 3) To protect the privacy of domain holders and data, the following > changes will be made: > > - Use cases will be defined in more detail and "Acceptable Use Policy" > documents will be written accordingly. > > - Raw data will not be made available. Is there no way for the authorized ccTLD owner to see their own raw data for their own ccTLD? -Hank From list-ripe-ncc-services at vicious.dropbear.id.au Thu Oct 6 16:03:41 2005 From: list-ripe-ncc-services at vicious.dropbear.id.au (Bruce Campbell) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:03:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Updated Hostcount++ proposal In-Reply-To: References: <434516C7.6000702@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: >> 3) To protect the privacy of domain holders and data, the following >> changes will be made: >> >> - Raw data will not be made available. > > Is there no way for the authorized ccTLD owner to see their own raw data > for their own ccTLD? In my original notes for the Hostcount++ proposal, the people supplying the data would retain access to the data that they supplied. Presumably those making such a request would have a rather pressing reason, such as an urgent need to rebuild their ccTLD. -- Bruce Campbell From denis at ripe.net Mon Oct 10 11:46:38 2005 From: denis at ripe.net (Denis Walker) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:46:38 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE Whois Database Manual Message-ID: <434A387E.7040300@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of an updated RIPE Whois Database Document. ripe-358 RIPE Whois Database Query Reference Manual Previously, this was part of ripe-252, The RIPE Database Reference Manual. The content has been thoroughly revised and updated. We have also improved the wording to make it clearer. We are now working on producing a RIPE Whois Database Update Reference Manual. The two new manuals together will obsolete ripe-252. You can find the document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/db-query-manual.html Regards Denis Walker Software Enginerring Department RIPE NCC From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Mon Oct 10 12:18:04 2005 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" Message-ID: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> Can anyone point me in the right direction (a ripe document?) which states a requirement for a(n existing) LIR to submit "company registration documents" to some admin clerk at the NCC? I cannot remember any such requirement to become a "registered company" as a prerequisite to becoming an LIR. I may be wrong. TIA, Wilfried. From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 12:26:23 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:26:23 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <200510101426.23375.president@ukraine.su> Hi! Yes, yes. It is boring me too and delays registration for monthes until documents are gathered, translated and so... > Can anyone point me in the right direction (a ripe document?) which states > a requirement for a(n existing) LIR to submit "company registration > documents" to some admin clerk at the NCC? > > I cannot remember any such requirement to become a "registered company" as > a prerequisite to becoming an LIR. I may be wrong. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From jochem at ripe.net Mon Oct 10 12:49:22 2005 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:49:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101426.23375.president@ukraine.su> References: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051010123329.04db41b0@mailhost.ripe.net> Dear Wilfried and all, This is stated in the Terms and Conditions document article 8.2.g. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/terms-conditions.html With the re-sign of the RIPE NCC agreements we noticed that for several existing members we are not in the possession of any company registration papers. Therefore we have approached those members. We are aware of the fact that not all organisations can submit an extract of the Trade register, in this case we request an equivalent document proving the registration of the Contributor's business with the national authorities. Regards, Jochem de Ruig RIPE NCC X-Original-To: ncc-services-wg at lists.ripe.net Delivered-To: ncc-services-wg at lists.ripe.net X-Spam-Flags: <.BLARS-SPAMSENDER.BLARS-NO-ABUSE. at imap1u.univie.ac.at>[193.0.9.84:[193.0.9.84]] From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" Reply-To: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Organization: UniVie - ACOnet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.1.0 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: X-RIPE-Spam-Tests: BAYES_00 X-RIPE-Spam-Status: U 0.498376 / -2.6 X-RIPE-Signature: 14b12290329657859610e389b3a0caee Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" Sender: ncc-services-wg-admin at ripe.net X-BeenThere: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 List-Id: RIPE NCC Services WG List-Post: X-RIPE-Lists: RIPE NCC Services WG List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:04 +0100 Can anyone point me in the right direction (a ripe document?) which states a requirement for a(n existing) LIR to submit "company registration documents" to some admin clerk at the NCC? I cannot remember any such requirement to become a "registered company" as a prerequisite to becoming an LIR. I may be wrong. TIA, Wilfried. From ula at ripn.net Mon Oct 10 13:06:02 2005 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa A. Yurkina) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:06:02 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101426.23375.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20051010145745.I68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Max Tulyev wrote: Hi, > Hi! > > Yes, yes. It is boring me too and delays registration for monthes until > documents are gathered, translated and so... > you don't have spend monthes gathering documents if you are legal organisation. You do have them already, just spend a minute for Xerox. > > Can anyone point me in the right direction (a ripe document?) which states > > a requirement for a(n existing) LIR to submit "company registration > > documents" to some admin clerk at the NCC? > > > > I cannot remember any such requirement to become a "registered company" as > > a prerequisite to becoming an LIR. I may be wrong. > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center ----- From maxtul at parkline.ru Mon Oct 10 13:23:49 2005 From: maxtul at parkline.ru (Maxim V. Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:23:49 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" Message-ID: <200510101523.49322.maxtul@parkline.ru> Hello Larisa! > > Yes, yes. It is boring me too and delays registration for monthes until > > documents are gathered, translated and so... > you don't have spend monthes gathering documents if you are legal > organisation. You do have them already, just spend a minute for Xerox. Sure. If you are only person in the firm and only you need is to put document in copy machine (Xerox) or scanner. In practice, getting a legal paper (any one, for example registration) from medium or large company (or just high-bueraucratic one) is near one month. Of course, the ball is in their side all that time and only I can is wait, but... I don't ever think about translation time ;) So for me I just ask for registration papers _before_ sending initial request for PI/AS, and often it is enough. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Oct 10 13:50:19 2005 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:50:19 +0200 (IST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101523.49322.maxtul@parkline.ru> References: <200510101523.49322.maxtul@parkline.ru> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Maxim V. Tulyev wrote: > Hello Larisa! > > > > Yes, yes. It is boring me too and delays registration for monthes until > > > documents are gathered, translated and so... > > you don't have spend monthes gathering documents if you are legal > > organisation. You do have them already, just spend a minute for Xerox. > > Sure. If you are only person in the firm and only you need is to put document > in copy machine (Xerox) or scanner. > > In practice, getting a legal paper (any one, for example registration) from > medium or large company (or just high-bueraucratic one) is near one month. Of > course, the ball is in their side all that time and only I can is wait, > but... Having just done this for a 2000+ employee company to become a LIR I can attest that it indeed takes a number of weeks until the right papers are found and then translated and notarized and passed through corporate counsel before being sent off to RIPE. Regards, Hank > > I don't ever think about translation time ;) > > So for me I just ask for registration papers _before_ sending initial request > for PI/AS, and often it is enough. > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > From ula at ripn.net Mon Oct 10 14:00:53 2005 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa A. Yurkina) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:00:53 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010155616.J68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Maxim V. Tulyev wrote: > > > Hello Larisa! > > > > > > Yes, yes. It is boring me too and delays registration for monthes until > > > > documents are gathered, translated and so... > > > you don't have spend monthes gathering documents if you are legal > > > organisation. You do have them already, just spend a minute for Xerox. > > > > Sure. If you are only person in the firm and only you need is to put document > > in copy machine (Xerox) or scanner. > > > > In practice, getting a legal paper (any one, for example registration) from > > medium or large company (or just high-bueraucratic one) is near one month. Of > > course, the ball is in their side all that time and only I can is wait, > > but... > > Having just done this for a 2000+ employee company to become a LIR I can > attest that it indeed takes a number of weeks until the right papers are > found and then translated and notarized and passed through corporate > counsel before being sent off to RIPE. RIPE NCC never demand them to be notarized. > > Regards, > Hank > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center ----- > > > > I don't ever think about translation time ;) > > > > So for me I just ask for registration papers _before_ sending initial request > > for PI/AS, and often it is enough. > > > > -- > > WBR, > > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > > > > From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 14:13:31 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:13:31 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010155616.J68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> References: <20051010155616.J68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> Message-ID: <200510101613.31289.president@ukraine.su> > > Having just done this for a 2000+ employee company to become a LIR I can > > attest that it indeed takes a number of weeks until the right papers are > > found and then translated and notarized and passed through corporate > > counsel before being sent off to RIPE. > > RIPE NCC never demand them to be notarized. Seems you never do mass PI registering ;) Yes, they sometime requests different unexpected things, like translations, users agreements, invoices for hardware listed in request and others. And almost anytime - registration papers. P.S. The question is still exists: what kind of documents these requirements are based on? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Mon Oct 10 14:23:26 2005 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:23:26 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051010123329.04db41b0@mailhost.ripe.net> References: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> <5.2.1.1.2.20051010123329.04db41b0@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <434A5D3E.6030208@cc.univie.ac.at> Jochem de Ruig wrote: > Dear Wilfried and all, > > This is stated in the Terms and Conditions document article 8.2.g. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/terms-conditions.html Thanks, Jochem, this provision obviously has been added for this new version. Just checked, it was not present in ripe-173, effectively ruling out the possibility of operating a non-commercial LIR or internet service? Are you able to provide the rationale for including this additional requirement? > With the re-sign of the RIPE NCC agreements we noticed that for > several existing members we are not in the possession of any company > registration papers. Therefore we have approached those members. > > We are aware of the fact that not all organisations can submit an extract > of the Trade register, in this case we request an equivalent document > proving the registration of the Contributor's business with the national > authorities. Judging from recent experience, providing a VAT number, and a reference to the historic founding documents of a pretty old university are not considered to be an "equivalent document". So, the other way 'round, what _is_ an "equivalent document" from your point of view? And no, I won't be able to just grab the document from the university's archive, issued on 12th of March 1365 (no typo), and put it onto a copying machine... > Regards, > > > Jochem de Ruig > RIPE NCC Regards, Wilfried. From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 14:39:56 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:39:56 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> Message-ID: <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> > > Seems you never do mass PI registering ;) > > I didn't mean PI registering, but LIRs only. The document ripe-321, as it > was already said. Yes, for establishing a new LIR anything is clear now... > PI registering is another procedure, as far as I know there is no special > policy document on that. ...but not for LIR client's assignments. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From leo at ripe.net Mon Oct 10 14:43:47 2005 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:43:47 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101613.31289.president@ukraine.su> References: <20051010155616.J68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101613.31289.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <29ED552C-6594-41AA-88D7-88EF9B068AC6@ripe.net> On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:13 pm, Max Tulyev wrote: [...] > Seems you never do mass PI registering ;) > > Yes, they sometime requests different unexpected things, like > translations, > users agreements, invoices for hardware listed in request and > others. And > almost anytime - registration papers. > > P.S. The question is still exists: what kind of documents these > requirements > are based on? In cases where we are asked to assign resources to a non-member we will often ask for documentation to let us know exactly who will be receiving the resources. The key issue is that as a registry, we have a responsibility to have a clear record of who a resource is registered to. If you ever have a query about exactly what we're looking for then we're happy to talk it through with you on the telephone if that's easier than e-mail. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From ula at ripn.net Mon Oct 10 14:31:23 2005 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa A. Yurkina) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:31:23 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101613.31289.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Max Tulyev wrote: > > > Having just done this for a 2000+ employee company to become a LIR I can > > > attest that it indeed takes a number of weeks until the right papers are > > > found and then translated and notarized and passed through corporate > > > counsel before being sent off to RIPE. > > > > RIPE NCC never demand them to be notarized. > > Seems you never do mass PI registering ;) I didn't mean PI registering, but LIRs only. The document ripe-321, as it was already said. PI registering is another procedure, as far as I know there is no special policy document on that. > > Yes, they sometime requests different unexpected things, like translations, > users agreements, invoices for hardware listed in request and others. And > almost anytime - registration papers. > > P.S. The question is still exists: what kind of documents these requirements > are based on? > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center ----- From gert at space.net Mon Oct 10 14:57:55 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:57:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <434A3FDC.8050909@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20051010125754.GG75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Can anyone point me in the right direction (a ripe document?) which states > a requirement for a(n existing) LIR to submit "company registration documents" > to some admin clerk at the NCC? > > I cannot remember any such requirement to become a "registered company" as a > prerequisite to becoming an LIR. I may be wrong. I've heard about this before (the local university computing centre had major problems becoming a LIR due to it not being a recognized legal entity on its own). As far as I understood, the rationale is "make sure that traceability of resources to well-known organizations exists", which requires proof of existance. Or so. I'm not sure when this came into being, maybe together with the introduction of the organization: objects. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From gert at space.net Mon Oct 10 15:03:09 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:03:09 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:39:56PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: > Yes, for establishing a new LIR anything is clear now... > ...but not for LIR client's assignments. Same motivation: traceability to organizations that have proven their existance. Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under false name, getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), and then get out annoying people, with no way to trace him back? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Mon Oct 10 15:57:12 2005 From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:57:12 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <434A5D3E.6030208@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: > Judging from recent experience, providing a VAT number, and a reference to > the historic founding documents of a pretty old university are not considered > to be an "equivalent document". This is strange because a VAT number shows that the local government has been able to determine that you are a real organization. This is better than any other documents whether they are translated or not. The RIPE employees can check the VAT number here: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/vies/en/vieshome.htm That takes care of most RIPE countries. For the other ones, I think it is unreasonable to force them to provide a translation because companies in England do not have to provide translated documents. --Michael Dillon From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 16:24:23 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:24:23 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> Hi, > Same motivation: traceability to organizations that have proven their > existance. > > Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under false name, > getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), and then get out > annoying people, with no way to trace him back? Of course, not ;) But I really don't believe that scanned picture often without any phone or address helps traceability. Look other way: is there some precedents that data helps to eliminate spammers? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From gert at space.net Mon Oct 10 16:27:59 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:27:59 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:24:23PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: > > Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under false name, > > getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), and then get out > > annoying people, with no way to trace him back? > > Of course, not ;) > > But I really don't believe that scanned picture often without any phone or > address helps traceability. Official documents might... > Look other way: is there some precedents that data helps to eliminate > spammers? There is precendence that spammers (and other abusers) hijack address space from the registries, most often "old and not well maintained" address blocks (weak passwords, mail only authentication, and such), and abuse that. Demonstrating that some abuse did *not* happen due to measures taken is sort of difficult - but I'm sure the LIR folks can say some more about this, like "how often do you get PI requests that never come back when asking for proof of existance" or such? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From leo at ripe.net Mon Oct 10 16:42:09 2005 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:42:09 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1A7F5784-71B6-429B-84E7-E5A637E66D25@ripe.net> On Oct 10, 2005, at 4:27 pm, Gert Doering wrote: [...] > There is precendence that spammers (and other abusers) hijack address > space from the registries, most often "old and not well maintained" > address blocks (weak passwords, mail only authentication, and such), > and abuse that. Leslie Nobile and I gave a short presentation on this subject at RIPE 48. The slides we presented are available on the web site at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-eof- nobile-vegoda.pdf http://tinyurl.com/cgnsf with the webcast archived here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/sessions-archive.html#tuesday Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 16:53:07 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:53:07 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <200510101853.07344.president@ukraine.su> Hi, > > But I really don't believe that scanned picture often without any phone > > or address helps traceability. > Official documents might... If I'm The Really Bad Guy, it is only a half of an hour with PhotoShop, isn't it? Even real firm registered with stolen or lost passports in UA or RU is $300 (the cost of one good mass mail). > > Look other way: is there some precedents that data helps to eliminate > > spammers? > There is precendence that spammers (and other abusers) hijack address > space from the registries, most often "old and not well maintained" > address blocks (weak passwords, mail only authentication, and such), > and abuse that. RIPE DB is just database, and if some records is changed - it doesn't help spammers. The aim is to take actions to networks giving them connectivity and announces that networks to the world. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From gert at space.net Mon Oct 10 16:57:46 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:57:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <200510101853.07344.president@ukraine.su> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> <200510101853.07344.president@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20051010145746.GS75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:53:07PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: > RIPE DB is just database, and if some records is changed - it doesn't help > spammers. The aim is to take actions to networks giving them connectivity and > announces that networks to the world. If you go to an upstream ISP, and can display a RIPE network entry that claims "I own 195.30.0.0/16 and AS5539", chances are good that this ISP will then provide routing for you... So indeed, getting the database entry is an important step toward tricking ISPs to route you. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 17:02:04 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:02:04 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <1A7F5784-71B6-429B-84E7-E5A637E66D25@ripe.net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> <1A7F5784-71B6-429B-84E7-E5A637E66D25@ripe.net> Message-ID: <200510101902.04354.president@ukraine.su> Hi Leo! > Leslie Nobile and I gave a short presentation on this subject at RIPE > 48. The slides we presented are available on the web site at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-eof- > nobile-vegoda.pdf > http://tinyurl.com/cgnsf > > with the webcast archived here: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/sessions-archive.html#tuesday Nice! BTW, how currently requested for PI/AS registration documents helps to pervent hijacking address space? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From dr at cluenet.de Mon Oct 10 17:26:37 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:26:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010145746.GS75997@Space.Net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> <200510101853.07344.president@ukraine.su> <20051010145746.GS75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20051010152637.GA23331@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:57:46PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:53:07PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: > > RIPE DB is just database, and if some records is changed - it doesn't help > > spammers. The aim is to take actions to networks giving them connectivity and > > announces that networks to the world. > > If you go to an upstream ISP, and can display a RIPE network entry that > claims "I own 195.30.0.0/16 and AS5539", chances are good that this ISP > will then provide routing for you... It's usually enough to just announce it right away, or fill some crappy web form with the prefix information. Unfortunately. > So indeed, getting the database entry is an important step toward tricking > ISPs to route you. Only for evildoers being customers of large ISPs who do stricly filter against IRR data. And then only RIPE IRR data can be used for authorization, as the only thing you need to create false IRR data in RADB is that you need to pay for a maintainer object. This is why I say that we need ONE constistent hierarchy of IRR auth data from IANA down. The safety net has larger holes than you seem to think, I'm afraid. :-Z Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From president at ukraine.su Mon Oct 10 17:34:44 2005 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:34:44 +0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010152637.GA23331@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <20051010145746.GS75997@Space.Net> <20051010152637.GA23331@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <200510101934.44062.president@ukraine.su> > It's usually enough to just announce it right away, or fill some crappy > web form with the prefix information. Unfortunately. Yes. But you need physic link to make announcement. And that is much traceable than unknown papers. Evil people can make evil papers with a PhotoShop and half of an hour of free time. But good people have to be bored gathering it in the real :( -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From randy at psg.com Mon Oct 10 18:16:24 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:16:24 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <200510101523.49322.maxtul@parkline.ru> Message-ID: <17226.37848.693874.733094@roam.psg.com> but what is the need/goal of this requirement? randy From randy at psg.com Mon Oct 10 18:23:18 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:23:18 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <17226.38262.34468.64150@roam.psg.com> > Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under false name, > getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), and then get out > annoying people, with no way to trace him back? do i care if joe is legally registered or not? do i care if joe is blonde? this places a barrier to entry which seems hard to reach for a number of classes of valid lirs, e.g. ngos in odd countries. randy From randy at psg.com Mon Oct 10 18:30:44 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:30:44 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <17226.38708.820529.299339@roam.psg.com> > Demonstrating that some abuse did *not* happen due to measures taken > is sort of difficult - but I'm sure the LIR folks can say some more > about this, like "how often do you get PI requests that never come > back when asking for proof of existance" or such? and what percentage that did not come back merely gave up on dealing with a stultifying rigid bureaucracy, took a /28 from an upstream, and natted 666 customers? randy From gert at space.net Mon Oct 10 19:35:44 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:35:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010152637.GA23331@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101824.23997.president@ukraine.su> <20051010142759.GN75997@Space.Net> <200510101853.07344.president@ukraine.su> <20051010145746.GS75997@Space.Net> <20051010152637.GA23331@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20051010173544.GY75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:26:37PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > So indeed, getting the database entry is an important step toward tricking > > ISPs to route you. > > Only for evildoers being customers of large ISPs who do stricly filter > against IRR data. And then only RIPE IRR data can be used for > authorization, as the only thing you need to create false IRR data in > RADB is that you need to pay for a maintainer object. This is why I say > that we need ONE constistent hierarchy of IRR auth data from IANA down. > > The safety net has larger holes than you seem to think, I'm afraid. :-Z Networks tend to consist mostly of holes between the rope... :-) But yes, I'm aware of that, and we should be working toward making it more difficult to spoof things, not making it more convenient. (If we can do it without ending up in horrendous bureaucracy) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jochem at ripe.net Tue Oct 11 08:48:24 2005 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:48:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051011080851.02d60078@mailhost.ripe.net> Dear Wilfried and all, > > This is stated in the Terms and Conditions document article 8.2.g. > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/terms-conditions.html > >Thanks, Jochem, > >this provision obviously has been added for this new version. Just >checked, it was not present in ripe-173, effectively ruling out the >possibility of operating a non-commercial LIR or internet service? > >Are you able to provide the rationale for including this additional >requirement? Indeed it was not present, we added this clause to be able to verify the legality of the contributor and existence of the contributor. As you can read from the Standard Terms and Conditions a Contributor can be a natural person or a legal entity. This also covers non-commercial organisations, government entities etc. We try to get as much clarity regarding the question: Does the organisation we sign a contract with exist? and do we sign a legal contract with this organisation? for a legal contract we need to make sure that the contract is signed by an authorised person. > > With the re-sign of the RIPE NCC agreements we noticed that for > > several existing members we are not in the possession of any company > > registration papers. Therefore we have approached those members. > > > > We are aware of the fact that not all organisations can submit an extract > > of the Trade register, in this case we request an equivalent document > > proving the registration of the Contributor's business with the national > > authorities. > >Judging from recent experience, providing a VAT number, and a reference to >the historic founding documents of a pretty old university are not considered >to be an "equivalent document". > >So, the other way 'round, what _is_ an "equivalent document" from your point >of view? Equivalent document is not well defined as we try to get confirmation of the legal status and existence of an organisation. Examples of document(s) are: - an extract from the trade register (which for commercial companies in many countries is easy to receive) - A copy of a founding document or charter signed by an authorised person - For another university we accepted a signed extract from the Official journal of laws from that country - An official paper on company letterhead signed by an authorised person, declaring the status and existence of the institute (for instance we accept this with ministries). - In case of natural persons we accept a copy of a passport. Also as a last resort we have accepted VAT registration papers although we initially prefer one of the above. And agree it is an additional bureaucratic procedure but this is a way we can sign an authorised legal agreement. Overall we have never denied anyone membership if they could not hand over an extract from the trade register but always we have come to an agreement regarding the equivalent document. And yes we do accept foreign language documents (but prefer English documents) Regards, Jochem de Ruig >And no, I won't be able to just grab the document from the university's >archive, >issued on 12th of March 1365 (no typo), and put it onto a copying machine... > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jochem de Ruig > > RIPE NCC > >Regards, >Wilfried From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 11 09:48:45 2005 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:48:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] New RIPE Whois Database Manual In-Reply-To: <434A387E.7040300@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20051011094535.0567a570@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 11:46 AM 10-10-05 +0200, Denis Walker wrote: Excellent! If and when you update ripe-358 please include an appendix with some common query examples. I would also update the search page and advanced search pages at: http://www.ripe.net/fcgi-bin/whois to point to this doc rather than the database doc. Thanks, Hank >Dear Colleagues, > >We are pleased to announce the publication of an updated RIPE Whois >Database Document. > >ripe-358 RIPE Whois Database Query Reference Manual > >Previously, this was part of ripe-252, The RIPE Database Reference >Manual. The content has been thoroughly revised and updated. We have >also improved the wording to make it clearer. > >We are now working on producing a RIPE Whois Database Update Reference >Manual. The two new manuals together will obsolete ripe-252. > >You can find the document at: > >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/db-query-manual.html > >Regards >Denis Walker >Software Enginerring Department >RIPE NCC > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Tue Oct 11 11:20:34 2005 From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:20:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051011080851.02d60078@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: > Does the organisation we sign a contract with exist? If you look up the VAT number here http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/vies/en/vieshome.htm then you will have the answer to this question. > and do we sign > a legal contract with this organisation? for a legal contract we need to > make sure that the contract is signed by an authorised person. If it is not signed by an authorised person then you can take back the addresses whenever you wish because there is no contract. Why worry about this? > And yes we do accept foreign language documents (but prefer English documents) You should really make it much clearer what is optional and what is mandatory. In order to have a level playing field, the rules must be fair and they must be published clearly. For an example of how a UK bank handles this look here: http://www.rbs.co.uk/small_business/Opening_a_new_account/documentation.htm As you can see the tables clearly show that 3 documents must be presented and there are several options for two types of document. Then the third document varies depending on the type of entity. I'm sure that RIPE could publish something similar. --Michael Dillon From jochem at ripe.net Tue Oct 11 13:49:50 2005 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:49:50 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.2.20051011080851.02d60078@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051011130715.06252278@mailhost.ripe.net> At 10:20 AM 10/11/2005 +0100, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote: > > Does the organisation we sign a contract with exist? > >If you look up the VAT number here >http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/vies/en/vieshome.htm >then you will have the answer to this question. Yes we do use this link for verification of the VAT number of the registry. The VAT registration only refers to the tax status of an organisation regarding the Sales tax. The Chamber of Commerce papers give us more information regarding company structure, authorised persons etc. Although this does not apply for all countries for instance UK gives a very brief overview. So we have always stuck to the extract of the Chamber of Commerce. Additional problems are: - For not all countries it states the name, address - Not possible for outside EU states (in addition for us it is not clear how the VAT regulation is implemented in countries outside the EU) - Not all organisations have a VAT number (governments) - In addition some countries state in their Chamber of Commerce extract the authorised persons within the company. > > and do we sign > > a legal contract with this organisation? for a legal contract we need to > > make sure that the contract is signed by an authorised person. > >If it is not signed by an authorised person then you >can take back the addresses whenever you wish because >there is no contract. Why worry about this? From a financial point of view I worry. It would imply the company is not bound to the agreement and any related policy, legal or financial claims. The company could claim back all their payments, with interest etc as they have no contract. Aside from the administration problems this gives in recognizing revenue. > > And yes we do accept foreign language documents (but prefer English >documents) > >You should really make it much clearer what is optional >and what is mandatory. In order to have a level playing >field, the rules must be fair and they must be published >clearly. For an example of how a UK bank handles this >look here: >http://www.rbs.co.uk/small_business/Opening_a_new_account/documentation.htm >As you can see the tables clearly show that 3 documents must be presented >and there are several options for two types of document. Then the third >document varies depending on the type of entity. > >I'm sure that RIPE could publish something similar. Yes I think this is a good suggestion. We are working on improving the New LIR process and can add this information so that it is explicit what documents must be provided. Regards, Jochem de Ruig >--Michael Dillon From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Oct 11 15:06:35 2005 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:06:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> On 10 okt 2005, at 15.03, Gert Doering wrote: > Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under false > name, > getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), and then get out > annoying people, with no way to trace him back? > Put another way. Even _with_ these requirements we have a hard time knowing who owns what address space... - kurtis - From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 11 18:51:06 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:51:06 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> >> Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under >> false name, getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), >> and then get out annoying people, with no way to trace him back? > Put another way. Even _with_ these requirements we have a hard > time knowing who owns what address space... this illogic does not at all show that these requirements improve that knowledge. e.g. even with invading iraq and murdering tens of thousands of human beings, we have a hard time knowing who owns what address space. randy From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Oct 12 11:21:22 2005 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:21:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> Randy, On 11 okt 2005, at 18.51, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Do *you* want Joe Random Spammer setup a spam business under >>> false name, getting PI space from RIPE (using the false name), >>> and then get out annoying people, with no way to trace him back? >>> >> Put another way. Even _with_ these requirements we have a hard >> time knowing who owns what address space... >> > > this illogic does not at all show that these requirements improve > that knowledge. > > e.g. > > even with invading iraq and murdering tens of thousands of human > beings, we have a hard time knowing who owns what address space. Whatever you tried to say went passed me here...:-( - kurtis - From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 12 15:45:50 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:45:50 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> >>> Put another way. Even _with_ these requirements we have a hard >>> time knowing who owns what address space... >> >> this illogic does not at all show that these requirements improve >> that knowledge. >> >> e.g. >> >> even with invading iraq and murdering tens of thousands of human >> beings, we have a hard time knowing who owns what address space. > > Whatever you tried to say went passed me here...:-( your sentence implied and relied on an assertion of relationship which you failed to justify. you have no idea if these requirements have helped or hindered knowledge of address space ownership or anything else. randy From webmaster at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 14:35:23 2005 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:35:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE Document available: RIPE-353 Message-ID: <200510131235.j9DCZNgL016470@birch.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new RIPE Document is available from the RIPE Document store. Ref: ripe-353 Title: ASN Missing In Action, A Comparison of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality Author: Henk Uijterwaal, Rene Wilhelm Date: October 2005 Format: PDF=763999 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- In this paper, we look at Autonomous System Number (ASN) assignments by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the number of unique ASNs seen by routers on the Internet. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-353.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-353.pdf PDF version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service From webmaster at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 14:38:56 2005 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:38:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New Document available: RIPE-359 Message-ID: <200510131238.j9DCcugL017478@birch.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-359 Title: RIPE NCC DNSSEC Policy Author: RIPE NCC Date: October 2005 Format: PDF=58240 TXT=3043 Short content description ------------------------- The RIPE NCC is committed to supporting the deployment of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [1,2,3]. DNSSEC is a set of security extensions to the DNS that allows validating DNS resolvers to establish 'chains of trust' from known public keys to the data being validated. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-359.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-359.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-359.txt plain text version From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 14 18:27:29 2005 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:27:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <7C410718-E262-4C07-BE91-538D58CE8680@kurtis.pp.se> On 12 okt 2005, at 15.45, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> Put another way. Even _with_ these requirements we have a hard >>>> time knowing who owns what address space... >>>> >>> >>> this illogic does not at all show that these requirements improve >>> that knowledge. >>> >>> e.g. >>> >>> even with invading iraq and murdering tens of thousands of human >>> beings, we have a hard time knowing who owns what address space. >>> >> >> Whatever you tried to say went passed me here...:-( >> > > your sentence implied and relied on an assertion of relationship > which you failed to justify. you have no idea if these > requirements have helped or hindered knowledge of address space > ownership or anything else. I was arguing that as the LIRs are the ones that (in the majority of the cases) submit the data to the RIPE DB, and more often are also listed instead of their customers (DSL blocks), and they have a documented relationship with the NCC, proving the identity of the LIR will help (partly) securing the trail to the owner of and allocated addressblock. In asking for the papers this does help the NCC to establish that trail. Which I believe is a good thing. - kurtis - From randy at psg.com Fri Oct 14 19:13:28 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:13:28 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> <7C410718-E262-4C07-BE91-538D58CE8680@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <17231.59192.982878.117955@roam.psg.com> > I was arguing that as the LIRs are the ones that (in the majority of > the cases) submit the data to the RIPE DB, and more often are also > listed instead of their customers (DSL blocks), and they have a > documented relationship with the NCC, proving the identity of the LIR > will help (partly) securing the trail to the owner of and allocated > addressblock. In asking for the papers this does help the NCC to > establish that trail. Which I believe is a good thing. what is the identity of an lir? try looking at, for example, the issues being raised in http://www.identity20.com/media/OSCON2005/ randy From tvest at pch.net Fri Oct 14 22:17:38 2005 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:17:38 -0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <17231.59192.982878.117955@roam.psg.com> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> <7C410718-E262-4C07-BE91-538D58CE8680@kurtis.pp.se> <17231.59192.982878.117955@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20414B2B-5F67-4D67-9244-86914B6E4248@pch.net> On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I was arguing that as the LIRs are the ones that (in the majority of >> the cases) submit the data to the RIPE DB, and more often are also >> listed instead of their customers (DSL blocks), and they have a >> documented relationship with the NCC, proving the identity of the LIR >> will help (partly) securing the trail to the owner of and allocated >> addressblock. In asking for the papers this does help the NCC to >> establish that trail. Which I believe is a good thing. > > what is the identity of an lir? try looking at, for example, the > issues being raised in http://www.identity20.com/media/OSCON2005/ > > randy Hi Randy, Thanks for this reference. Identity is a tool or pragmatic feature like a database key field, that makes inter-temporal associations (e.g., "recognition") and cross-referencing ("resemblance") possible. Recognition over time makes thinks like trust and reputation possible -- which in turn makes makes trust-based judgments (e.g., association vs. avoidance) easier, which in turn reduces opex (infinite safeguards, 200% advance deposits, full replacement value insurance, etc.). It's not 100% effective even in the mundane world -- nor would we want it to be (think panopticon). However it seems pretty easy to say that it "works better" -- to this particular end -- if there is a reasonably high correlation between thing-x and signaling feature (x). The OSCOM guy talks about all of the associations, experiences, and historical contingencies associated with him as if they could serve as a full and final description description of his identity. But it seems to me that *he* is the key field -- the physical guy in the middle of all of the swirl. There's nothing to hang all of those experiences/observations on if you take him out. And it's hard for me to imagine how a theory like his would have ever seemed plausible if we lived in a place like the Internet, where it's possible to jump out of one's own skin (key field) and into the skin (key field) of another existing "identity" -- or to make a completely new one up. This doesn't mean that that experiential/observational identity features have no place in the Internet, nor does it mean that we've already got the best Internet identity key field (i.e., whois and the other less visible parts of the RIR databases) possible. I just have a hard time understanding how one would be of any use at all without the other. Maybe all you really care about is long-term stable behavioral/historical identities, and you're prepared to shun the news ones and erratic ones as peers, customers, etc., until they stabilize and become familiar? But that leaves the little guys in the semi-permanent outs, and it gives the big guys permanent license -- because they can always spawn and then drop new peripheral identities when they want to do bad things. Relying exclusively on historical/ behavioral identities provides no assurance at all against false negatives (failing to recognize a bad guy) like this. Or so it seems to me. Viewed this way, aggregating and decomposing key fields and associated records doesn't seem like such an intractable dilemma. The identity of an LIR depends on what you want to know about it -- maybe in this context what we want to know is what ASNs it legitimately controls, what these are authorized to originate and announce, and how to get in touch with them when necessary. Others may want to know about explicitly observational things (frequency of flapping, bad traffic, timely bill payment, etc.) Still others might find it useful to recognize other features of the LIR to serve other purposes (e.g., for regulatory compliance, taxation, etc.). But to cohere all of these things have to have something else to hang off of -- for the LIR presumably, this is some conventional official institutional records. Wrote an article about this for ARIN, coming out any day. Apologies in advance for the usual obscurities/ambiguities, but this really is a place were ops can take a lesson from philosophy... Tom From randy at psg.com Sat Oct 15 09:43:39 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:43:39 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> <7C410718-E262-4C07-BE91-538D58CE8680@kurtis.pp.se> <17231.59192.982878.117955@roam.psg.com> <20414B2B-5F67-4D67-9244-86914B6E4248@pch.net> Message-ID: <17232.45867.486115.570153@roam.psg.com> > The OSCOM guy talks about all of the associations, experiences, and > historical contingencies associated with him as if they could serve > as a full and final description description of his identity. But it > seems to me that *he* is the key field -- the physical guy in the > middle of all of the swirl. and when we can send [a copy of] him over the net, we can enjoy the benefits of all the wordy sophistry. until then, we'll just have to muddle along with the reality with which we are faced. and, in this reality, some paper from a government agency seems both unnecessary and unhelpful in trusting the identity of an lir. we trust them enough to have a clearly tracable financial transaction. do we have the right to tell them how they must do business? randy From tvest at pch.net Sat Oct 15 19:51:27 2005 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:51:27 -0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Admin: request for "Company Registration documents" In-Reply-To: <17232.45867.486115.570153@roam.psg.com> References: <20051010162506.M68940-100000@capral.ripn.net> <200510101639.56780.president@ukraine.su> <20051010130309.GH75997@Space.Net> <88AE58FB-048B-4773-8610-66978BA452E1@kurtis.pp.se> <17227.60794.627649.435062@roam.psg.com> <6646A32A-7E98-4B04-8963-87BBF427E34F@kurtis.pp.se> <17229.5006.297078.375933@roam.psg.com> <7C410718-E262-4C07-BE91-538D58CE8680@kurtis.pp.se> <17231.59192.982878.117955@roam.psg.com> <20414B2B-5F67-4D67-9244-86914B6E4248@pch.net> <17232.45867.486115.570153@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <97A63D2B-48F8-4595-9839-901ED2AD9163@pch.net> On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:43 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > and, in this reality, some paper from a government agency seems > both unnecessary and unhelpful in trusting the identity of an > lir. we trust them enough to have a clearly tracable financial > transaction. So, maybe my understanding of the process/content of billing in RIPE- land is deficient. A "clearly traceable financial transaction" sounds a lot more confidence inspiring "any financial transaction at all, so long as it arrives on time" (e.g., anonymous money order from 7-11, etc.). What does RIPE require that the transaction be clearly traceable to? If it's something that anchors net-identity to some stable, persistent, contactable institution, then maybe that's enough. Can someone share details? > do we have the right to tell them how they must do business? I'm glad to have a friend in the society of sophists :) I think we do have a right to tell them they have to identity themselves in some way in order to *go into* the business, and to expect that that information remains accurate over time. If we don't have the right to expect stable/transparent identification at at least the LIR/ASN level, then is there another practical, scalable, fair way to secure end-points? If there isn't, don't we have a right to declare that such identification is required for the greater good of all? The only rights we really enjoy are the ones that we've declared this way, and then fought to protect and enforce. Right now operators in some places enjoy the de-facto option of complete or selective anonymity (i.e., no one but my friends may recognize me, and only to the degree chosen by me; who my friends are are determined by me on a transaction-by-transaction basis, subject to modification at any time) I've never heard this declared as a right. Is it? Tom From timothy at ripe.net Thu Oct 20 14:45:08 2005 From: timothy at ripe.net (Timothy Lowe) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:45:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility Message-ID: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, One of our members has asked the RIPE NCC to provide a test facility for the RIPE NCC ticket robot. The proposed test facility would enable users to test the compatibility of third-party commercial IP administration software with the RIPE NCC ticket robot. We would like to know if our members think it would be worthwhile for the RIPE NCC to introduce this test facility. The facility would behave exactly like the production ticket robot, except it will only send responses to the requester and nothing to the RIPE NCC. We would appreciate your input on this suggestion. Please voice your opinion by sending a mail to this mailing list. -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 From gstammw at gmx.net Thu Oct 20 16:34:06 2005 From: gstammw at gmx.net (gstammw at gmx.net) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:34:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> Message-ID: <57530.132.180.7.129.1129818846.squirrel@edu-search.de> Hello, I think that this would be a nice feature in general but also a waste of money since one can use the original robot in combination with a test-object or something like that. Better save the money. Gunther From lists at complx.LF.net Thu Oct 20 16:40:45 2005 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:40:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20051020144045.GE62233@complx.LF.net> Hello, > We would like to know if our members think it would > be worthwhile for the RIPE NCC to introduce this test > facility. Yes. Most registries start to introduce this kind of facility, because production systems and production data are too important to test against. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 15 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 timothy at ripe.net Thu Oct 20 16:45:45 2005 From: timothy at ripe.net (Timothy Lowe) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:45:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <57530.132.180.7.129.1129818846.squirrel@edu-search.de> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <57530.132.180.7.129.1129818846.squirrel@edu-search.de> Message-ID: <20051020144545.GN8762@ripe.net> Dear Gunther, Thank you for your response. > money since one can use the original robot in combination with a > test-object or something like that. Using that method would however generate tickets for the NCC Internet Protocol Resource Analysts who would have to then manually check if they were test tickets and then close them. -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, gstammw at gmx.net wrote: > Hello, > > I think that this would be a nice feature in general but also a waste of > money since one can use the original robot in combination with a > test-object or something like that. > Better save the money. > > Gunther > From andre.koopal at nld.mci.com Thu Oct 20 17:16:34 2005 From: andre.koopal at nld.mci.com (Andre Koopal) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:16:34 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <57530.132.180.7.129.1129818846.squirrel@edu-search.de> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <57530.132.180.7.129.1129818846.squirrel@edu-search.de> Message-ID: <20051020151624.GN27127@asoserve0.ams.ops.eu.uu.net> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:34:06PM +0200, gstammw at gmx.net wrote: > Hello, > > I think that this would be a nice feature in general but also a waste of > money since one can use the original robot in combination with a > test-object or something like that. > Better save the money. > > Gunther > I don't see much extra costs involved here, just a clone off the current software with some different settings, and an alias in the aliasfile. It can most probably just run on the same machine. I would say go for it, it is much better to be able to test against a test service. Of course it does need to simulate everything, including generating a ticket you can reply on. Regards, Andre Koopal MCI From contact at ripe.net Thu Oct 20 17:39:17 2005 From: contact at ripe.net (Membership Liaison Officer) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:39:17 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Doha, Qatar - 17-18 January 2006 Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051020173105.02cdfc68@mailhost.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Doha, Qatar. The meeting will be held 17 ? 18 January 2006. The meeting venue will be announced shortly. Further information about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Qatar is available at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/qatar-2006/index.html Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is open and free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. REGISTRATION Registration for the Regional Meeting is now open. Registration will close on Friday, 13 January 2006. To register, please see: https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/meeting/registration/meeting.html?id=28 AGENDA Topics on the agenda will include discussions on Internet Security and Routing Security, with experts from the industry presenting during the meeting. On Wednesday afternoon, 18 January, the RIPE NCC will give training seminars on Routing Registry and DNSSEC. A preliminary draft agenda is available on our website at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/qatar-2006/agenda.html We need your input! We have reserved space in the agenda for presentations from the local community on current issues affecting the region. If there is a particular presentation or topic you would like included in the agenda, please send your suggestion to: contact at ripe.net MORE INFORMATION More information about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Qatar is available at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/qatar-2006/ Any further questions can be sent directly to: contact at ripe.net Regards, Nathalie Dougall Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC www.ripe.net From gert at space.net Thu Oct 20 19:01:20 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:01:20 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20051020170120.GL75997@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:45:08PM +0200, Timothy Lowe wrote: > One of our members has asked the RIPE NCC to > provide a test facility for the RIPE NCC ticket robot. Very useful thing (if it can be done without spending a year's wage on programmers time :-) ). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 20 23:03:04 2005 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:03:04 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> Message-ID: <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> Hi Timothy, Timothy Lowe wrote: > One of our members has asked the RIPE NCC to > provide a test facility for the RIPE NCC ticket robot. I don't have any particular view here as I don't have to deal with the robot these days. Having said that, DENIC, the german ccTLD registry, has a test registry system ready for its members for more than x; x > 3 years now. And in the absence of any negative feedback I consider it (happily) welcome by them. The real difference I'd see is that DENIC's robot is really an automat with no human intervention - when the NCC's ticket robot by its very nature requires that (aka. manpower). But I might be wrong here, see first para. So for the time being some of the comments here hold somewhat true for me - is there an estimation of the additional workload on the IP Resource Analysts to process these test tickets? Even by only alternately approving and rejecting every single one of them? But maybe even this human intervention can be automated in the test system on a per LIR basis then? Cheers, Carsten From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Oct 21 09:41:11 2005 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:41:11 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051020170120.GL75997@Space.Net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <20051020170120.GL75997@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 20 okt 2005, at 19.01, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:45:08PM +0200, Timothy Lowe wrote: > >> One of our members has asked the RIPE NCC to >> provide a test facility for the RIPE NCC ticket robot. >> > > Very useful thing (if it can be done without spending a year's wage on > programmers time :-) ). I agree. I think this would be a useful system and should be a fairly straight forward copy of the existing system. - kurtis - From timothy at ripe.net Fri Oct 21 10:36:27 2005 From: timothy at ripe.net (Timothy Lowe) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:36:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <20051021083627.GC30204@ripe.net> Hello Carsten, Thank you for that information. To answer your question we don't know how much extra work using the production robot would cause our resource analysts as we don't know how many tickets would be created by testing automated resource managment systems, however we do know that each ticket so created would have to be manually processed by them. Please note that creating a ticket robot test facility would require approximately two days for one programmer. -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:03:04PM +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > Timothy Lowe wrote: > >One of our members has asked the RIPE NCC to > >provide a test facility for the RIPE NCC ticket robot. > > I don't have any particular view here as I don't have to deal with the > robot these days. > > Having said that, DENIC, the german ccTLD registry, has a test registry > system ready for its members for more than x; x > 3 years now. And in > the absence of any negative feedback I consider it (happily) welcome by > them. > > The real difference I'd see is that DENIC's robot is really an automat > with no human intervention - when the NCC's ticket robot by its very > nature requires that (aka. manpower). But I might be wrong here, see > first para. > > So for the time being some of the comments here hold somewhat true for > me - is there an estimation of the additional workload on the IP > Resource Analysts to process these test tickets? Even by only > alternately approving and rejecting every single one of them? But maybe > even this human intervention can be automated in the test system on a > per LIR basis then? > > Cheers, > > Carsten From jeroen at unfix.org Fri Oct 21 12:29:03 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:29:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <20051021083627.GC30204@ripe.net> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> <20051021083627.GC30204@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1129890544.5104.35.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:36 +0200, Timothy Lowe wrote: > Please note that creating a ticket robot test facility would > require approximately two days for one programmer. Go for it and set it up. Having test tickets in the production system and having the analysts mark them as test gives more overhead in the long run. my 1 cent of your local currency ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From timothy at ripe.net Fri Oct 21 15:28:04 2005 From: timothy at ripe.net (Timothy Lowe) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:28:04 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <1129890544.5104.35.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> <20051021083627.GC30204@ripe.net> <1129890544.5104.35.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20051021132804.GA9833@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Thank you all for your input. We will go ahead with this project starting Monday. Have a nice weekend everyone. -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 12:29:03PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:36 +0200, Timothy Lowe wrote: > > > Please note that creating a ticket robot test facility would > > require approximately two days for one programmer. > > Go for it and set it up. Having test tickets in the production system > and having the analysts mark them as test gives more overhead in the > long run. > > my 1 cent of your local currency ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen > From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Oct 21 15:30:36 2005 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:30:36 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC service request - ticket robot test facility In-Reply-To: <1129890544.5104.35.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20051020124508.GL8762@ripe.net> <43580608.2030901@schiefner.de> <20051021083627.GC30204@ripe.net> <1129890544.5104.35.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4358ED7C.6060100@cc.univie.ac.at> Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:36 +0200, Timothy Lowe wrote: > > >>Please note that creating a ticket robot test facility would >>require approximately two days for one programmer. > > > Go for it and set it up. Having test tickets in the production system > and having the analysts mark them as test gives more overhead in the > long run. > > my 1 cent of your local currency ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen ...another ~ 13,5 Groschen in support of setting up the test system. We do have a test DB, and we should have a "test-hostmaster" sys. I would never dare to test a piece of software, being under development, against a production environment. But then I was never a genius programmer :-) Wilfried