From rramphul at ripe.net Mon Oct 1 17:09:44 2012 From: rramphul at ripe.net (Radha Ramphul) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:09:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Policy Proposal 2011-05 "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space" implemented Message-ID: <5069B238.9000705@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IXP IPv4 assignments under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553 IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments will now be evaluated using a common request template. You can access the template through the LIR Portal or online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-564 The supporting notes are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-565 If you have any questions, please contact. Regards, Radha Ramphul Registration Services RIPE NCC From training at ripe.net Mon Oct 8 11:26:08 2012 From: training at ripe.net (Training Mailbox) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:26:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates In-Reply-To: <4FF546EA.8000703@ripe.net> References: <4FF546EA.8000703@ripe.net> Message-ID: <50729C30.9020405@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We're pleased to announce that we've added new RIPE NCC Webinar dates for RIPE NCC members. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one-hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important to RIPE NCC members. Register now at: Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email . We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From mir at ripe.net Tue Oct 9 15:51:32 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:51:32 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Short report about last week's outage now on RIPE Labs Message-ID: <50742BE4.7000007@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As announced earlier, we published a short report on RIPE Labs analysing the network outage we experienced at the RIPE NCC: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-ncc-outage-report-29-october-2012 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Tue Oct 9 16:07:55 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:07:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Short report about last week's outage now on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <50742BE4.7000007@ripe.net> References: <50742BE4.7000007@ripe.net> Message-ID: <50742FBB.30507@ripe.net> Hi, Of course the title of the article should read: RIPE NCC Outage Report - 29 September 2012 (I hope we won't have another one on 29 October ;-) ) Sorry about the confusion. Kind regards, Mirjam On 9/10/12 3:51 PM, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > As announced earlier, we published a short report on RIPE Labs analysing > the network outage we experienced at the RIPE NCC: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-ncc-outage-report-29-october-2012 > > Kind regards, > Mirjam Kuehne > RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Oct 15 15:48:16 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:48:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 12 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 16:23:56 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:23:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Strong support. This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 PI is hopefully allowed once again. -- Richard From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Oct 15 17:27:26 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:27:26 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 >PI is hopefully allowed once again. That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the PI assignee, *that does not exist*. Prima facie, all that a LIR does is handle paperwork for the NCC - many LIRs do not even route the PI space they sponsor. No relationship beyond the administration of documents necessarily exists. Registering this administrative relationship creates an attack surface for harassment and extortion of sponsoring LIRs by copyright trolls, anti-spam extortionists and others of that ilk and infringes on the right of a business (such as a LIR is) not to reveal any and all commercial relationships they may have with other parties. The arguments in detail: "The RIPE resource allocation and assignment policy documents require that Internet number resources be registered 'via a public registry documenting address space allocation and assignment' and notes that 'this is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels'." Invalid, the resources are registered with the RIR, not the sponsoring LIR. "This mechanism provides a simple means for End Users to identify with which sponsoring organisation they have a contractual link, in the case this information is unknown to the End User." Accepted, but the end-user can easily find this information by contacting the RIPE NCC. "This policy simplifies the mechanism for verification and co-ordination between sponsoring organisations when an End User wishes to transfer resources from one sponsoring organisation to another." Unneccessary, as the actual decision and verification is done by the NCC anyway. "Publishing this information provides an additional means for tackling abuse issues on the Internet." Invalid, see above. Regards, Sascha Luck From nick at netability.ie Mon Oct 15 18:11:33 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:11:33 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> Hi Sascha, On 15/10/2012 16:27, Sascha Luck wrote: > That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the > sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of > responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the > PI assignee, *that does not exist*. thanks for your comments. Can you explain how this link doesn't exist if the sponsoring LIR has requested RPKI certification on behalf of the PI end user, and why this contractual link is invalid in this situation? > Registering this administrative relationship creates an attack surface > for harassment and extortion of sponsoring LIRs by copyright > trolls, anti-spam extortionists and others of that ilk and infringes on > the right of a business (such as a LIR is) not to reveal any and all > commercial relationships they may have with other parties. Much the same argument could be made about the requirement to register PA address space assignees in the RIPE DB. Yet we accept that this is a good thing. Nick From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Oct 15 18:48:10 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:48:10 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Nick, On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:11:33PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >thanks for your comments. Can you explain how this link doesn't exist if >the sponsoring LIR has requested RPKI certification on behalf of the PI end >user, and why this contractual link is invalid in this situation? That is an argument against RPKI rather than one in favour of sponsoring-LIR registration, IMO. To whit, the imposition of a hierarchical structure on a non-hierarchical internet and the creation of "chains-of-responsibility" from thin air where none exist (and shouldn't exist). It would be better to have the end-user rpki-register their own resources with the RIR (who can easily verify their validity) [disclosure of commercial relationships] >Much the same argument could be made about the requirement to register PA >address space assignees in the RIPE DB. Yet we accept that this is a good >thing. Not all of these relationships are actually registered, viz DSL or wireless broadband dynamic ranges. The relationship of end-user and PA holder is far more obvious by its nature, so I'm not sure much is gained by trying to keep it secret. Even so, privacy issues *have* arisen out of this situation... With PI it's not the same situation *at all*. PI space is provider-*independent* and thus may be one last way to prevent a LIR becoming collateral damage in an attack on the end-user (eg a politically controversial organisation) rgds, Sascha Luck From nick at netability.ie Mon Oct 15 20:35:33 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:35:33 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> On 15/10/2012 17:48, Sascha Luck wrote: > That is an argument against RPKI rather than one in favour of > sponsoring-LIR registration, IMO. To whit, the imposition of a > hierarchical structure on a non-hierarchical internet and the creation > of "chains-of-responsibility" from thin air where none exist (and shouldn't > exist). > It would be better to have the end-user rpki-register their own > resources with the RIR (who can easily verify their validity) Nevertheless, we are where we are and although you may not like RPKI, it exists and we have to deal with. Part of this is to put sensible policies in place to handle it. Regarding PI resources, a contractual link between the RIPE NCC and the end user exists, and the NCC has implemented RPKI using this chain of contracts. Changing this would require a direct contractual link between the end user and the RIPE NCC. If you want to change it, then why not fly a policy proposal in that direction? Or if you feel strongly enough, float a policy proposal to drop rpki? But as it is, my point stands: there is no easy visibility into the rpki contractual side of things according to current RIPE policy, and this is a weakness which harms abuse handling. This, btw, is separate to the general abuse issue noted in the "Arguments For" section of the proposal for providing a mechanism for being able to contact a LIR to apply their AUP to an abusing End User. Not sure why you're arguing that there is a problem with it. Abusing end users exist and hide where they can. > Not all of these relationships are actually registered, viz DSL or > wireless broadband dynamic ranges. No, not all, but every one where the address range is >= /29. This is a very large number of assignments indeed. > With PI it's not the same situation *at all*. PI space is > provider-*independent* and thus may be one last way to prevent a LIR > becoming collateral damage in an attack on the end-user (eg a > politically controversial organisation) This makes very little sense. If there's a perceived issue with a PI resource End User, then their legal name and contact details are already in the RIPE database so for the most part, it will be the end user who gets the flack. And if for some reason their LIR ends up with collateral damage and feels they need to drop them as clients (I'm sure this happens from time to time), then there are 8000 other LIRs in the RIPE service region who can take the transfer. Nick From nick at netability.ie Mon Oct 15 20:51:14 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:51:14 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507C5B22.7010408@netability.ie> On 15/10/2012 16:27, Sascha Luck wrote: > "The RIPE resource allocation and assignment policy documents require > that Internet number resources be registered 'via a public registry > documenting address space allocation and assignment' and notes that > 'this is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for > Internet troubleshooting at all levels'." > > Invalid, the resources are registered with the RIR, not the sponsoring > LIR. 'this is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels' means that if some information is hiding, then information is not being provided for Internet troubleshooting at all levels. Look, the point of BCP12 is good housekeeping and one of the ways we have on the Internet of implementing good housekeeping is to keep stuff out in the open, not hiding away information in a back room. BCP12 is not a BCP because it contains a whole pile of bad practice, or because that advice is in any way out of date. This is current recommended policy for all Internet object registration. > "This mechanism provides a simple means for End Users to identify with > which sponsoring organisation they have a contractual link, in the case > this information is unknown to the End User." > > Accepted, but the end-user can easily find this information by > contacting the RIPE NCC. Last time I looked, the RIPE NCC service region contained about a billion people, and there were 28000 PI blocks. This doesn't scale. Let's automate it and get a cheaper RIPE NCC which isn't spending money answering stupid questions which can just as easily be answered by a computer. > "This policy simplifies the mechanism for verification and co-ordination > between sponsoring organisations when an End User wishes to transfer > resources from one sponsoring organisation to another." > > Unneccessary, as the actual decision and verification is done by the NCC > anyway. Knowing which organisation you're going to be dealing with in advance will cut down significantly on time and general overhead when dealing with transfers. I.e. you can make prior contact with the remote LIR and have stuff arranged in advance and things will go smoothly. Again: this proposal is about making life easy and better and more consistent with the existing policies which we use. Manual intervention is a pain and inconsistent with this improvement. Nick From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Oct 15 21:38:11 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:38:11 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:35:33PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >Regarding PI resources, a contractual link between the RIPE NCC and the end >user exists, and the NCC has implemented RPKI using this chain of >contracts. Changing this would require a direct contractual link between >the end user and the RIPE NCC. If you want to change it, then why not fly It ain't necessarily so. A requirement for a contract *may* arise if the end-user has to pay the NCC for the service. This could probably be solved via a pay portal or even be made free to end-users. All information necessary is already held by the NCC, indeed even the decision whether to allow this contract is made there. >a policy proposal in that direction? Or if you feel strongly enough, float >a policy proposal to drop rpki? I would, but since rpki does not exist qua policy, a policy to abolish it would not be effective. >But as it is, my point stands: there is no easy visibility into the rpki >contractual side of things according to current RIPE policy, and this is a >weakness which harms abuse handling. To re-iterate, a LIR is *not* responsible for "abuse" perpetrated by the end-user, your proposal is merely trying to create this responsibility out of thin air and ex post facto. (I assume this requirement is intended to apply to existing contracts) >This, btw, is separate to the general abuse issue noted in the "Arguments >For" section of the proposal for providing a mechanism for being able to >contact a LIR to apply their AUP to an abusing End User. Not sure why >you're arguing that there is a problem with it. Abusing end users exist >and hide where they can. Firstly, "abuse" is in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, a LIR has no more call to cancel a contract for resources than the NCC has in case of PA space. ISTR it being mentioned at a meeting that "spamming is a perfectly valid use of resources as far as the NCC is concerned". I checked the NCC end-user template and some actual contracts I handled and *nowhere* do these make reference to AUPs. The only requirements on the end-user are to pay and to use the resources according to policy. In fact Article 6.3 states clearly that the end-user accepts all liability for the use of the resource(s). Your contention that the sponsoring LIR should be held in some way accountable for the behaviour of the end-user, is thus not supported by the existing contract. This proposal is, by this argument, working into the hands of certain parties (you know who you are) whose mission in business is to impose their political and moral beliefs on the internet in general and will most certainly use this information to put pressure on LIRs to cancel their contracts with, or refuse to sponsor, "unwelcome" end-users. >> With PI it's not the same situation *at all*. PI space is >> provider-*independent* and thus may be one last way to prevent a LIR >> becoming collateral damage in an attack on the end-user (eg a >> politically controversial organisation) >This makes very little sense. If there's a perceived issue with a PI >resource End User, then their legal name and contact details are already in >the RIPE database so for the most part, it will be the end user who gets >the flack. And that is as should be, since the end-user is solely responsible for what they do with their resources. Unfortunately, I am not quite as naive as to believe that an attack would stop there, on the contrary; the attacker might very well pursue the LIR which probably has deeper pockets and is therefore more at risk. >And if for some reason their LIR ends up with collateral damage >and feels they need to drop them as clients (I'm sure this happens from >time to time), then there are 8000 other LIRs in the RIPE service region >who can take the transfer. Again, I disagree. This policy would have a chilling effect on LIRs signing up end-users as it creates the appearance (if not the fact) of a legal responsibility on the part of the LIR for the behaviour of an end-user, much as is already the case with the deplorable and amoral practice, by certain entities, of harassing transit providers for the behaviour of their downstreams. I also refer the recent "Dutch Police Order" and the pamphlet by that UANI crowd as evidence of attacks in a similar vein as described above. rgds, Sascha From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Oct 15 21:52:07 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:52:07 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507C5B22.7010408@netability.ie> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5B22.7010408@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20121015195207.GD41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Nick, >Last time I looked, the RIPE NCC service region contained about a billion >people, and there were 28000 PI blocks. This doesn't scale. Let's >automate it and get a cheaper RIPE NCC which isn't spending money answering >stupid questions which can just as easily be answered by a computer. I certainly hope that not all 28k end-users forget who sponsored their PI... Anyway, I accept your argument but the price of setting up the LIR as an easy, automatic target for attacks against the end-user is too high for me and so I still oppose the proposal. >Knowing which organisation you're going to be dealing with in advance will >cut down significantly on time and general overhead when dealing with >transfers. I.e. you can make prior contact with the remote LIR and have >stuff arranged in advance and things will go smoothly. That's almost another argument against the proposal, as another unintended consequence could be the poisoning of relations between LIRs in such cases... (FWIW, I myself don't care if a PI user moves away, the 50 Euro are really not worth the hassle, in fact if this proposal passes I'm going to recommend the cancellation of all PI contracts. YMMV, though) >Again: this proposal is about making life easy and better and more >consistent with the existing policies which we use. Manual intervention is >a pain and inconsistent with this improvement. It will make life easier for a variety of good and evil entities, I can't see what advantage a LIR could have out of it, though. rgds, Sascha From sander at steffann.nl Mon Oct 15 23:56:55 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:56:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Hi Sasha, > That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the > sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of > responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the > PI assignee, *that does not exist*. That is not completely correct... RIPE-452 contains the requirement that the contract between the end-user and the LIR must contain: - Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date So if there is something wrong with the registration records / RIPE database then there is a responsibility for the LIR. - Sander From nick at netability.ie Tue Oct 16 00:12:21 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:12:21 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote: > To re-iterate, a LIR is *not* responsible for "abuse" perpetrated by the > end-user, your proposal is merely trying to create this responsibility > out of thin air and ex post facto. (I assume this requirement is > intended to apply to existing contracts) My goodness, I have no idea where you pulled that one from. :-) > This proposal is, by this argument, working into the hands of certain > parties (you know who you are) whose mission in business is to impose their > political and moral beliefs on the internet in general and will > most certainly use this information to put pressure on LIRs to cancel > their contracts with, or refuse to sponsor, "unwelcome" end-users. Ok, I'm going to call a halt at this stage. I'm really not interested in arguing against scary conspiratorial hand-waving and defending this policy proposal against allegations that the sky is going to fall. I don't think that the sky is going to fall, or that the policy is going to cause sinister attacks to occur with chilling effects. In fact, I can't see even a single black helicopter. For the record let me state that I do think that this proposal is a generally sensible clarification of the current policy which is fully consistent with other similar current policies concerning information availability and IETF recommended practices and all that sort of thing. Nick From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 16 00:36:40 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:36:40 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20121015223640.GE41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi Sander, On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:56:55PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: >So if there is something wrong with the registration records / RIPE >database then there is a responsibility for the LIR. OK, but no responsibility for the use of the resources, just the administrative details. rgds, Sascha From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 16 00:42:55 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:42:55 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:12:21PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote: > >I don't think that the sky is going to fall, or that the policy is >going to cause sinister attacks to occur with chilling effects. In >fact, I can't see even a single black helicopter. Well, you're thinking wrong - such (attempted) attacks have already happened against the NCC, including one that is currently pending judicial review. While the NCC may well be able to fend these off, I'm not convinced that all LIRs have the resources or the willingness. rgds, Sascha Luck From bengan at bag.org Tue Oct 16 10:44:37 2012 From: bengan at bag.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:44:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> 2012-10-16 00:42, Sascha Luck skrev: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:12:21PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote: >> >> I don't think that the sky is going to fall, or that the policy is >> going to cause sinister attacks to occur with chilling effects. In >> fact, I can't see even a single black helicopter. > > Well, you're thinking wrong - such (attempted) attacks have already > happened against the NCC, including one that is currently pending > judicial review. While the NCC may well be able to fend these off, I'm > not convinced that all LIRs have the resources or the willingness. First. I'm in favor of this proposal if the sponsoring LIR is clearly stated in the resource. Would it be to much to ask if the record in the db would reflect the relationship between sponsering LIR and the object maintainer? It could be as lightweight as "databasehelper-mnt" or something more suitable. Secondly. We have done this for a number of years now, but in a slightly different way. We are transparent with our resources in RIPE. I would say that the sky will not fall down. At least not in Sweden. We get about 0.8% "DMCA take down requests" or similar in proportion to the number of assignment resources in the RIPE database that we have. We just have to politely respond to them and explain the situation. I think the average "take down" requester does not know how things work for the RIR/LIR. I can see a problem in a country where the law is in favor of "take down" requester. At least in Sweden, we see this much like National Land Survey. They have the responsibility for registering property, but not the operational responsibility for what happens there. If this is a problem for the RIPE region at large, I think we have to consider the proposal again. If not, see the first paragraph. /Bengt Gorden From nick at netability.ie Tue Oct 16 12:14:58 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:14:58 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> Message-ID: <507D33A2.5090701@netability.ie> Hi Bengt On 16/10/2012 09:44, Bengt G?rd?n wrote: > First. I'm in favor of this proposal if the sponsoring LIR is clearly > stated in the resource. Would it be to much to ask if the record in the db > would reflect the relationship between sponsering LIR and the object > maintainer? It could be as lightweight as "databasehelper-mnt" or something > more suitable. Kaveh Ranjbar presented some ideas at the last RIPE meeting which may be relevant to this: https://ripe65.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/db-wg/ > that the sky will not fall down. At least not in Sweden. We get about 0.8% > "DMCA take down requests" or similar in proportion to the number of > assignment resources in the RIPE database that we have. We just have to > politely respond to them and explain the situation. I think the average > "take down" requester does not know how things work for the RIR/LIR. I can > see a problem in a country where the law is in favor of "take down" > requester. At least in Sweden, we see this much like National Land Survey. > They have the responsibility for registering property, but not the > operational responsibility for what happens there. If this is a problem for > the RIPE region at large, I think we have to consider the proposal again. To be honest I really don't see how this is substantially different to open registration for any other details. The principals of open registration are very well established and we all agree that it is a good thing. Nick From mir at ripe.net Tue Oct 16 12:24:37 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:24:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Wi-Fi Issues During RIPE 65 Message-ID: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> Dear colleague, During the recent RIPE 65 meeting, some attendees experienced problems with the wireless network. Together with these attendees we investigated the problem. Please find a detailed report on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/john_bond/wifi-issues-during-ripe-65 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From bengan at bag.org Tue Oct 16 12:51:24 2012 From: bengan at bag.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:51:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507D33A2.5090701@netability.ie> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> <507D33A2.5090701@netability.ie> Message-ID: <507D3C2C.7050905@bag.org> 2012-10-16 12:14, Nick Hilliard skrev: > Hi Bengt > > On 16/10/2012 09:44, Bengt G?rd?n wrote: >> First. I'm in favor of this proposal if the sponsoring LIR is clearly >> stated in the resource. Would it be to much to ask if the record in the db >> would reflect the relationship between sponsering LIR and the object >> maintainer? It could be as lightweight as "databasehelper-mnt" or something >> more suitable. > Kaveh Ranjbar presented some ideas at the last RIPE meeting which may be > relevant to this: > > https://ripe65.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/db-wg/ Thank you. That saved me some time digging through the "have not seen" sessions. I was at the EIX session at that time. > >> that the sky will not fall down. At least not in Sweden. We get about 0.8% >> "DMCA take down requests" or similar in proportion to the number of >> assignment resources in the RIPE database that we have. We just have to >> politely respond to them and explain the situation. I think the average >> "take down" requester does not know how things work for the RIR/LIR. I can >> see a problem in a country where the law is in favor of "take down" >> requester. At least in Sweden, we see this much like National Land Survey. >> They have the responsibility for registering property, but not the >> operational responsibility for what happens there. If this is a problem for >> the RIPE region at large, I think we have to consider the proposal again. > To be honest I really don't see how this is substantially different to open > registration for any other details. The principals of open registration > are very well established and we all agree that it is a good thing. Agreed. I'm a firm believer in openness and transparency. This was just a reservation that if the proposal don't get approved I think we need to have another discussion about it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I need to know the sponsoring LIR for my daily work. /bengt From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 16 13:25:58 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:25:58 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507D3C2C.7050905@bag.org> References: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> <507D33A2.5090701@netability.ie> <507D3C2C.7050905@bag.org> Message-ID: <20121016112558.GG41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi Bengt, On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Bengt G?rd?n wrote: >I need to know the sponsoring LIR for my daily work. Can you go into more detail on this? I'd be really interested in seeing an actual use-case for this information. As is, I can't think of one as it really only signifies that a LIR, at some stage, handled paperwork for an end-user... Regards, Sascha Luck From bengan at bag.org Tue Oct 16 14:19:33 2012 From: bengan at bag.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:19:33 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121016112558.GG41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C8A45.2060606@netability.ie> <20121015224255.GF41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507D1E75.7040205@bag.org> <507D33A2.5090701@netability.ie> <507D3C2C.7050905@bag.org> <20121016112558.GG41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507D50D5.5080300@bag.org> 2012-10-16 13:25, Sascha Luck skrev: > Hi Bengt, > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Bengt G?rd?n wrote: > >> I need to know the sponsoring LIR for my daily work. > > Can you go into more detail on this? I'd be really interested in seeing > an actual use-case for this information. As is, I can't think of one as > it really only signifies that a LIR, at some stage, handled paperwork > for an end-user... Mostly others benefits from this because of our policy to be open. We have a few thousand assigned objects so I think our openness today gives us a lot more in return than the reverse. I think it would work for others too. And now the other way around, which happens. A customer (not our) to a sponsoring LIR (unknown) contacts us to say that they need to change something (route, ipv6 domain, what have you). The first question is "what sponsoring LIR do you have". Typical answer is "what?". Next question is "what upstream provider do you have". ISP XYZ. Still not the sponsoring LIR. I have to start explaining to them what it is. Often they still don't know. They have to ask "someone". When they have asked "someone" the best case scenario is that it's actually a LIR and the case is sorted out. Often in a day or two. Worst case scenario is that we bounce mail back and forth a few days up to several weeks with no outcome. If I could have seen the sponsoring LIR from the start it would have been sorted out in hours/day. The sponsoring LIR is also responsible for updating the RIPE db and knows how to do that. So talking to a person that actually knows what their doing is much more efficient than to be a teacher in the "University of Internet" to person X. /bengt From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 16 19:57:33 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:57:33 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Wi-Fi Issues During RIPE 65 In-Reply-To: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> Message-ID: really good analysis report. thanks lab and thanks ncc ops. one comment > We noticed that attendees seemed reluctant to report issues to the > RIPE NCC operations team during the RIPE meeting there is no visible clue on how to do this. e.g. no ops help desk or 'get tech help' signage pointing to the noc. randy From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Oct 16 21:00:43 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:00:43 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:57, Randy Bush wrote: >> We noticed that attendees seemed reluctant to report issues to the >> RIPE NCC operations team during the RIPE meeting > > there is no visible clue on how to do this. e.g. no ops help desk or > 'get tech help' signage pointing to the noc. Randy, I'm surprised you think such signage or clue is needed because the meeting bumf clearly says how to spot the NCC's ops people. It's usually mentioned in the opening plenary too. From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 16 21:09:50 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:09:50 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: >>> We noticed that attendees seemed reluctant to report issues to the >>> RIPE NCC operations team during the RIPE meeting >> there is no visible clue on how to do this. e.g. no ops help desk or >> 'get tech help' signage pointing to the noc. > Randy, I'm surprised you think such signage or clue is needed because > the meeting bumf clearly says how to spot the NCC's ops people. It's > usually mentioned in the opening plenary too. jim, it's because i am an idiot and took the report's statement that attendees seemed reluctant to report at face value. silly me. other meetings seem to have very successful help desks, and their communities seem to like debugging wireless. of course there is no lesson to be learned from that here. silly me. randy From gert at space.net Tue Oct 16 22:11:29 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:11:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20121016201129.GP13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:00:43PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:57, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> We noticed that attendees seemed reluctant to report issues to the > >> RIPE NCC operations team during the RIPE meeting > > > > there is no visible clue on how to do this. e.g. no ops help desk or > > 'get tech help' signage pointing to the noc. > > Randy, I'm surprised you think such signage or clue is needed because > the meeting bumf clearly says how to spot the NCC's ops people. It's > usually mentioned in the opening plenary too. Since I never can remember whether its "opsmtg at ripe.net" or "mtg-ops at ripe.net" or whatever, I did run into the same issue - checked the web page, tried to find contact details. Got a web form. Gah. Of course we know how to identify ops people, but anyone having done support knows that "coordinated reporting" instead of "just tell someone and hope that he's not busy with what he is doing right now and will remember" is more useful... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 16 22:13:55 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:13:55 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: <20121016201129.GP13776@Space.Net> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> <20121016201129.GP13776@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Since I never can remember whether its "opsmtg at ripe.net" or > "mtg-ops at ripe.net" or whatever, I did run into the same issue - > checked the web page hard to do when your laptop has no connectivity randy From gert at space.net Tue Oct 16 22:21:37 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:21:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> <20121016201129.GP13776@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20121016202137.GQ13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:13:55AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > Since I never can remember whether its "opsmtg at ripe.net" or > > "mtg-ops at ripe.net" or whatever, I did run into the same issue - > > checked the web page > > hard to do when your laptop has no connectivity Well, indeed. But my point is: those contact e-mails exist, and have been so well hidden that I couldn't find 'em. (Occasionally, I had enough network to be able to send a short e-mail, and of course there have been wires in the terminal room). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Tue Oct 16 22:21:24 2012 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:21:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ops help at RIPE meetings In-Reply-To: <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> <9A500E72-7D8C-45D0-9648-0F4CF0004FC7@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20121016202124.GA6364@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:00:43PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:57, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> We noticed that attendees seemed reluctant to report issues to the >>> RIPE NCC operations team during the RIPE meeting >> >> there is no visible clue on how to do this. e.g. no ops help desk or >> 'get tech help' signage pointing to the noc. > > Randy, I'm surprised you think such signage or clue is needed because the Randy is right. I was also affected by the problem, but I was sure that this is either my problem or a broken AP (since I noticed the problem in only one location - the nearby of the NCC desk). Nice info on the flipchart in the lobby about problems (and possibly about searching for a affected people) could help. > meeting bumf clearly says how to spot the NCC's ops people. It's usually > mentioned in the opening plenary too. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From alexb at ripe.net Wed Oct 17 09:20:29 2012 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:20:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] The IP Analyser: streamlining your IP address management Message-ID: <4ECA1B93-B7B1-433B-A3AB-179586499315@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, I'm very happy to announce that today we are launching the IP Analyser as a production service. This LIR Portal application is aimed at simplifying and streamlining your IP address management. It allows members to get the following: - An overview of all your allocations and assignments - An overview of available free space in your allocations - An overview of all invalid assignments that require your attention For LIRs, this application serves as a replacement for the well-known asused tool, which has been used to verify a registry's usage data for many years. The IP Analyser offers several key advantages: - Both public and private information about your registry is fetched in real-time and displayed in a user-friendly web application - You no longer have to contact Registration Services if you would like to have an overview of your invalid assignments - The application can suggest free space for your customer assignments with conservation in mind In addition, we offer an API that allows you to fetch all IP Analyser data in JSON format, as well as a plain text report that uses the asused format. The IP Analyser API opens up a world of new scripting options and integration in IP address management solutions while retaining support for existing scripts. Several IP address management solution providers have committed to integrating support for the IP Analyser and My Resources APIs. In this release, we only implement full IPv4 support. This means that the IP Analyser will not offer IPv6 functionality for the time being. Work on integrating IPv6 functionality and other features will continue in 2013. In the meantime, we are eager to hear which features you would like to see in the user interface and API so we can continue to improve this service. The IP Analyser is available at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/ipanalyser/ (requires member login) Documentation on the IP Analyser API and many other services can be found at: https://ripe.net/developers Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 17 11:45:44 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:45:44 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <507c1445.c3b20e0a.45bd.336dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20121015152726.GA41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C35B5.7020508@netability.ie> <20121015164810.GB41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507C5775.4010505@netability.ie> <20121015193811.GC41549@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507E7E48.5060500@titley.com> Sascha On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote: > >> a policy proposal in that direction? Or if you feel strongly enough, >> float >> a policy proposal to drop rpki? > > I would, but since rpki does not exist qua policy, a policy to abolish > it would not be effective. Whilst RPKI does not exist qua policy, neither do a lot of other things (remember the PDP is fairly recent). Furthermore it was explicitly said during the discussions on RPKI that if the community passed a policy abolishing RPKI then the RIPE NCC would abide by this. Nigel From bengan at bag.org Wed Oct 17 12:36:22 2012 From: bengan at bag.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:36:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Wi-Fi Issues During RIPE 65 In-Reply-To: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> References: <507D35E5.3040009@ripe.net> Message-ID: <507E8A26.7050105@bag.org> 2012-10-16 12:24, Mirjam Kuehne skrev: > Dear colleague, > > During the recent RIPE 65 meeting, some attendees experienced problems > with the wireless network. Together with these attendees we > investigated the problem. Please find a detailed report on RIPE Labs: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/john_bond/wifi-issues-during-ripe-65 First, let me just say that helpdesk staff was very nice and friendly. I had problems with bandsteering and visited them several times. I also felt that my Samsung Galaxy S3 and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 had the same problem. regards, /bengan From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 17 21:11:13 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:11:13 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) Message-ID: < peanut gallery > this one seems a no brainer to me. it's just part of proper and open documentation of registration and allocation, the ncc's primary job. as far as the lir not wanting to be known to have sponsored a pi site, if the lir is ashamed of doing something, maybe they should not have done it. i just don't get this stuff. correct and open documentation is the ncc's primary job. randy From mm at elabnet.de Wed Oct 17 21:58:50 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:58:50 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507F0DFA.3030204@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 21:11, Randy Bush wrote: > < peanut gallery > > > this one seems a no brainer to me. it's just part of proper and > open documentation of registration and allocation, the ncc's > primary job. > > as far as the lir not wanting to be known to have sponsored a pi > site, if the lir is ashamed of doing something, maybe they should > not have done it. That sounds reasonable, +1 from me.. best regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/DfMACgkQaWRHV2kMuALceACgjKAnGcUjIs33qNq02aQ3Z6cq 4/wAoMXtaGHNvlL8dxjtm8jn257t/C9H =j3hX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 17 22:19:22 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:19:22 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:11:13AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >as far as the lir not wanting to be known to have sponsored a pi site, >if the lir is ashamed of doing something, maybe they should not have >done it. i just don't get this stuff. Which neatly, if unintentionally, proves my point about chilling effects on PI sponsoring. rgds, Sascha Luck From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 17 22:19:42 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:19:42 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: >> as far as the lir not wanting to be known to have sponsored a pi >> site, if the lir is ashamed of doing something, maybe they should not >> have done it. i just don't get this stuff. > > Which neatly, if unintentionally, proves my point about chilling > effects on PI sponsoring. and you think you can reconcile secret sponsoring with the principal goal of accuracy and open visibility of registry data? randy From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 17 22:44:27 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:44:27 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:19:42AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >and you think you can reconcile secret sponsoring with the principal >goal of accuracy and open visibility of registry data? I don't consider absolute "openness" the principal goal. It may have been in 1992, when all participants were friendly academics and techies, unfortunately this is 2012 where every asshole with a grudge can use various websites to find out each and every business relationship a LIR has on a public, uncontrolled database. LIRs are pretty unique in having to, perforce, make publically available nearly all info about their business. There are other privacy issues with the database, however, these are off-topic in this context. rgds, Sascha Luck From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 17 22:51:30 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:51:30 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: >> and you think you can reconcile secret sponsoring with the principal >> goal of accuracy and open visibility of registry data? > I don't consider absolute "openness" the principal goal. this will simplify things greatly. if we can not see the data, then there is also no need for it to be accurate. membership costs can be greatly reduced. marvelous! randy From mm at elabnet.de Wed Oct 17 22:53:02 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:53:02 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 22:44, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:19:42AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >> and you think you can reconcile secret sponsoring with the >> principal goal of accuracy and open visibility of registry data? > > I don't consider absolute "openness" the principal goal. Sorry to disagree, as a LIR I do. When you do legal business here, I shouldn't be afraid of someone to be able to find out which customers I have.. there are other ways anyway.. If some LIR has sponsored X PI, he schould be noted and be able to get contacted IMHO. > It may have been in 1992, when all participants were friendly > academics and techies, unfortunately this is 2012 where every > asshole with a grudge can use various websites to find out each and > every business relationship a LIR has on a public, uncontrolled > database. LIRs are pretty unique in having to, perforce, make > publically available nearly all info about their business. There > are other privacy issues with the database, however, these are > off-topic in this context. For a working Internet I'd appreciate a definite, clear, confirmed, current contact for resources in case of abuse etc.. I know some PI-owners (and thats why I fully agree with Randy's position and refused to sponsor some of them over all of the years!) that have 10yrs outdated contacts in the database, no response on abuse for weeks - and no chance for the remaining 99,9% of the honest and simply acting trustworthy people (LIRs) out there to contact them. That's the point where I want to know, whom to contact "upstream" to clarify this.. Someone should be able to get contacted (not responsible!).. Just a suggestion: If its only about privacy, a tradeoff could be: only visible for LIRs in lirportal (?) best regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/Gq4ACgkQaWRHV2kMuAL/UACePuvG7gOwpQBhAox43whmbBsw og8An2DXRPBbC75NHGmlf+QFNlA8z4/+ =3p4J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 17 23:16:21 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:16:21 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:53:02PM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote: >For a working Internet I'd appreciate a definite, clear, confirmed, >current contact for resources in case of abuse etc.. For the n-th time now in this thread: The LIR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a sponsored PI range. Same as the NCC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a PA range. As long as people will attempt to MAKE the LIRs responsible for their sponsored PI, I will oppose any such policy. Harassing a LIR for perceived abuse from a PI range wastes your time and pisses off the LIR. >I know some PI-owners (and thats why I fully agree with Randy's >position and refused to sponsor some of them over all of the years!) >that have 10yrs outdated contacts in the database, no response on >abuse for weeks - and no chance for the remaining 99,9% of the honest >and simply acting trustworthy people (LIRs) out there to contact them. That, the sponsoring LIR *IS* responsible for since 2007-01, so any non-contactable PI holders should be shut down when the next payday comes around at the latest. Also the NCC can shutdown LIRs for incorrect information, I assume that to include PI information. >That's the point where I want to know, whom to contact "upstream" to >clarify this.. Someone should be able to get contacted (not >responsible!).. A sponsoring LIR *may* be the upstream, in which case the ASPATH should show it. Many LIRs do not route their sponsored PI resources. >Just a suggestion: If its only about privacy, a tradeoff could be: >only visible for LIRs in lirportal (?) That may be acceptable, at least more so than making it uncontrolledly public. rgds, Sascha Luck From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 17 23:12:43 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:12:43 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: >> For a working Internet I'd appreciate a definite, clear, confirmed, >> current contact for resources in case of abuse etc.. > > For the n-th time now in this thread: > The LIR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a sponsored PI range. Same as > the NCC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a PA range. why do you not try reading michael's message again? the LIR and the NCC may not be responsible for the abuse. but they are responsible for accurate and open publication of the information about who is responsible for the PI range. randy From mm at elabnet.de Wed Oct 17 23:20:53 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:20:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 23:16, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:53:02PM +0200, Michael Markstaller > wrote: >> For a working Internet I'd appreciate a definite, clear, >> confirmed, current contact for resources in case of abuse etc.. > > For the n-th time now in this thread: The LIR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE > for abuse from a sponsored PI range. Same as the NCC IS NOT > RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a PA range. > > As long as people will attempt to MAKE the LIRs responsible for > their sponsored PI, I will oppose any such policy. Harassing a LIR > for perceived abuse from a PI range wastes your time and pisses off > the LIR. Who is it then? Sorry, thats a little unfair.. We as LIR and me as CTO have to be responsible for our resources. Lets say it a little drastic: If someone asks me for a /24 to spam the world, I'd tell him I won't do this as I'm responsible what happens there. Point. But would it be ok to tell: "Well, hmm, get a PI don't tell anybody it's from me and push out your shit over another provider so they just don't call up me?" Don't think so.. > That, the sponsoring LIR *IS* responsible for since 2007-01, so > any non-contactable PI holders should be shut down when the next > payday comes around at the latest. Also the NCC can shutdown LIRs > for incorrect information, I assume that to include PI > information. I don't see this to happen but I maybe wrong.. >> That's the point where I want to know, whom to contact "upstream" >> to clarify this.. Someone should be able to get contacted (not >> responsible!).. > > A sponsoring LIR *may* be the upstream, in which case the ASPATH > should show it. Many LIRs do not route their sponsored PI > resources. Thats clear but there IMHO must be some path to get hold of the user - either via sponsoring LIR or via upstream (which might be more complicated but also a way..) >> Just a suggestion: If its only about privacy, a tradeoff could >> be: only visible for LIRs in lirportal (?) > > That may be acceptable, at least more so than making it > uncontrolledly public. I could live with that, as long as abuse-mails don't end up in a fictious, never existing mailbox ;) Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/ITQACgkQaWRHV2kMuAJeIQCfdm0mXW8XFEGbGR5+gofBkXkq gNUAnROcA9zHsew0BTb9Tz5DgEL+PKBc =8AhU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 17 23:31:26 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:31:26 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20121017213126.GD51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:12:43AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >the LIR and the NCC may not be responsible for the abuse. but they are >responsible for accurate and open publication of the information about >who is responsible for the PI range. Yes. If some LIR does not do that, contact the NCC. That is its function, it knows who sponsors the PI, and it has the powers to "convince" a LIR to keep its information current. Spam from self-appointed internet cops I can, as a LIR-contact, do without. rgds, Sascha Luck From mm at elabnet.de Wed Oct 17 23:34:52 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:34:52 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017213126.GD51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017213126.GD51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507F247C.7010004@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 23:31, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:12:43AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >> the LIR and the NCC may not be responsible for the abuse. but >> they are responsible for accurate and open publication of the >> information about who is responsible for the PI range. > > Yes. If some LIR does not do that, contact the NCC. That is its > function, it knows who sponsors the PI, and it has the powers to > "convince" a LIR to keep its information current. Spam from > self-appointed internet cops I can, as a LIR-contact, do without. > > rgds, Sascha Luck What I don't understand now: where is the need for the PI-owner to stay more or less anonymous and the NCC over three edges to follow up on that.. Just to keep a LIR's customers secret can't be the main argument - or again - is unfair - as if I remember policies right, as LIR with PA I have to tell in DB my customer.. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/JHwACgkQaWRHV2kMuAJ3LQCgl0gR3viab9vzkGhA/3eUkhlR 4eYAoIcX7PirTsH5hO3k8oMkuU9WIlt0 =jiBQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 17 23:53:03 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:53:03 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <20121017215303.GE51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote: >Who is it then? > >Sorry, thats a little unfair.. >We as LIR and me as CTO have to be responsible for our resources. >Lets say it a little drastic: If someone asks me for a /24 to spam the >world, I'd tell him I won't do this as I'm responsible what happens >there. Point. They are not *your* resources, they are Provider-Independent. You can, of course, write in your PI contract what you want, but not all of us want to play internet police for some PI space we may not even route. >But would it be ok to tell: "Well, hmm, get a PI don't tell anybody >it's from me and push out your shit over another provider so they just >don't call up me?" >Don't think so.. Yes, in the case of a politically controversial website or something like that (think mohammed videos or such) this may be the *only* way for someone to get PI and I'd like to keep it like that. > >> That, the sponsoring LIR *IS* responsible for since 2007-01, so >> any non-contactable PI holders should be shut down when the next >> payday comes around at the latest. Also the NCC can shutdown LIRs >> for incorrect information, I assume that to include PI >> information. > >I don't see this to happen but I maybe wrong.. The shutdown clause is in the Service Agreement (albeit as a last resort if a LIR is uncooperative in the case of incorrect data) rgds, Sascha Luck From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Oct 18 00:01:13 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:01:13 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507F247C.7010004@elabnet.de> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017213126.GD51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F247C.7010004@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <20121017220113.GF51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:34:52PM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote: >What I don't understand now: where is the need for the PI-owner to >stay more or less anonymous and the NCC over three edges to follow up >on that.. Nonono, the PI "owner" is never anonymous, they must be registered in the db, there has to be a contract and the NCC makes sure the user exists (the LIR can't even do that themselves!) >Just to keep a LIR's customers secret can't be the main argument - or > again - is unfair - as if I remember policies right, as LIR with PA I >have to tell in DB my customer.. Well, IMO that deserves some review as well from a privacy POV but is not part of this proposal. However, PA space is different as that is "owned" by the LIR and merely assigned to the end-user. That makes the LIR responsible for the actions of the assignee (via AUP etc). rgds, Sascha From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Oct 18 00:10:27 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:10:27 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <20121017221027.GG51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote: >Thats clear but there IMHO must be some path to get hold of the user - >either via sponsoring LIR or via upstream (which might be more >complicated but also a way..) I'm not actually concerned about your use-case of an uncontactable PI end-user, that is entirely legit. What worries me more is every internet muppet and their brother now being able to harass and threaten a LIR for any perceived wrong by a sponsored end-user (when the LIR could actually not even do anything about it). >>> Just a suggestion: If its only about privacy, a tradeoff could >>> be: only visible for LIRs in lirportal (?) This would at least mitigate against kooks and randomers. Most LIRs should know about the PI-sponsoring relationship. rgds, Sascha From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 18 03:56:33 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:56:33 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017221027.GG51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> <20121017221027.GG51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: > What worries me more is every internet muppet and their brother now > being able to harass and threaten a LIR for any perceived wrong by a > sponsored end-user (when the LIR could actually not even do anything > about it). like this is gonna be any noticeable increase in hell desk load? From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 18 04:02:04 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:02:04 -1000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017220113.GF51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017213126.GD51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F247C.7010004@elabnet.de> <20121017220113.GF51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: > Nonono, the PI "owner" is never anonymous, they must be registered in > the db, there has to be a contract and the NCC makes sure the user > exists (the LIR can't even do that themselves!) they have no contract or direct contact with the ncc. and the lir is out of the loop as the pi owner has pied long ago. we have allowed a very ambiguous mess. instead of making things even more complex, how can we simplify it? randy From mm at elabnet.de Thu Oct 18 03:23:46 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:23:46 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017221027.GG51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> <20121017221027.GG51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507F5A22.4000208@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 18.10.2012 00:10, Sascha Luck wrote: > I'm not actually concerned about your use-case of an uncontactable > PI end-user, that is entirely legit. What worries me more is every > internet muppet and their brother now being able to harass and > threaten a LIR for any perceived wrong by a sponsored end-user > (when the LIR could actually not even do anything about it). So it makes more sense to speak about "the end of PI" - either LIR+AS or there is just no PI ? I'm with you on this hard fight ;) regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/WiIACgkQaWRHV2kMuAK2igCeIqVjWKmwa5xdgP06YtO9AT4P PowAoO19XorsVbrky9dFbwmyd2DH4kKN =4jx4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mm at elabnet.de Thu Oct 18 03:17:53 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:17:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20121017215303.GE51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20121017201922.GA51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20121017204427.GB51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F1AAE.6070503@elabnet.de> <20121017211621.GC51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> <507F2135.1020505@elabnet.de> <20121017215303.GE51153@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <507F58C1.8020102@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 23:53, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Michael Markstaller > wrote: >> Who is it then? >> >> Sorry, thats a little unfair.. We as LIR and me as CTO have to be >> responsible for our resources. Lets say it a little drastic: If >> someone asks me for a /24 to spam the world, I'd tell him I won't >> do this as I'm responsible what happens there. Point. > > They are not *your* resources, they are Provider-Independent. You > can, of course, write in your PI contract what you want, but not > all of us want to play internet police for some PI space we may not > even route. Hey, I didn't say that. The resources are lended and I dont want to play police (which is wrong, if then I'd want want to be a dictator ;)) I think we mean the same, I'm pro an open, legal system. But honestly, look at the PI-assigments: percentage with reachable eMails? Is it more than 10%? >> But would it be ok to tell: "Well, hmm, get a PI don't tell >> anybody it's from me and push out your shit over another provider >> so they just don't call up me?" Don't think so.. > > Yes, in the case of a politically controversial website or > something like that (think mohammed videos or such) this may be the > *only* way for someone to get PI and I'd like to keep it like > that. I understand your point (see the discussion on the weird uani request), my answer as LIR is: I'm not responsible or accountable for ressouces but - IMHO when I lend them from RIPE to someone, still somewhat in charge - and therefore I have to take care of, otherwise I could stay consumer and take PA, isn't it ? So again the question: why should PI be more or less more anonymous while we as LIR have to be transparant and tell ? So very tightened said: Why should have the PI-owners have better rights than me as a LIR? Said another way: I want their data, I want to know where, who etc.. This is not about collecting data (which I refuse), its about knowing what I need in case.. regards Michael Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/WMEACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKQBwCdGotPHNGaegV7wj6JoqIdAh+4 XMcAoPCDn5fdGKDJuiqr6b3OeYSKPoIZ =5dsK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From training at ripe.net Mon Oct 29 11:04:28 2012 From: training at ripe.net (Training Mailbox) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:28 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates Message-ID: <508E54AC.1020009@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars for LIRs. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email . We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services