From no-reply at ripe.net Tue Sep 4 09:48:42 2012 From: no-reply at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:48:42 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC has Approximately Four Million IPv4 Addresses Before Reaching Last /8 Message-ID: <5045B25A.3000907@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has now entered phase one of its approach to reaching the last /8. This means that: - As of Tuesday, 4 September, we have approximately one month (or a /10) worth of IPv4 address space (4,134,976 addresses) to distribute before we reach the last /8. - Our IPRAs are now working in pairs to ensure that all requests are dealt with efficiently and to further ensure fairness, consistency and transparency. This means that our response times may be longer than you have previously experienced. You can find the response times for requests for IPv4 address space at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for-lirs/reponse-time-ipv4 - Our "call back procedure" has changed. We will now call requestors about their ticket only when their ticket is at the front of the request queue. This will ensure that no ticket is handled outside of the order it was received in. - Depending on the availability in the RIPE NCC?s free pool of IPv4 address space, you may receive multiple smaller prefixes that add up to the size of your request. - The quarantine period in place for returned IPv4 address space before it can be re-used will be gradually decreased. In the last days before we reach the last /8, the quarantine period may be reduced to one week or less. This will ensure that there is no IPv4 address space left in the quarantine pool when we start to allocate from the last /8. More information about quarantine periods can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/quarantine-for-returned-internet-number-resources - The Available IPv4 Pool Graph will be updated daily as of Wednesday, 5 September. You can find this graph online at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph More information about reaching the last /8 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/last-8-phases ================================================== Important Billing Information for RIPE NCC Members ================================================== If you have had an outstanding invoice for 60 days or more, we cannot approve any requests for Internet number resources until the outstanding amount has been paid. For more details about billing, please see: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/billing-procedure-and-fee-schedule-for-lirs-2012 Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Sep 4 14:23:03 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:23:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ERX transfer agreement with Internet In-Reply-To: <3665B627-4102-4E73-8D10-E100219230CB@steffann.nl> References: <50368960.8000704@netability.ie> <3665B627-4102-4E73-8D10-E100219230CB@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <5045F2A7.6030709@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > >>could someone point me in the direction of the InterNIC->RIPE NCC ERX >>transfer agreement, if this exists? IIRC, that was not a "direct" step involving InterNIC or such and the RIRs, but rather ARIN became - for clerical reasons I presume - the heir/custodian of all the "old" (but sort of authoritative, albeit stale) registration records for the nonARIN regions. On top of that, part of the motivation was the creation of LACNIC (for which the existing records were held in ARIN) and AfriNIC (for which some older records were kept in ARIN, and the more recent ones in RIPE). > Any other XYZ->RIPE NCC ERX transfer agreements those would also be very much > appreciated. > > Thanks, > Sander Hth, Wilfried. From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Wed Sep 5 09:44:06 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:44:06 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] LIR association with number resources In-Reply-To: References: <50192CD8.7000107@inex.ie> <20120801134343.GB38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <504702C6.20400@redpill-linpro.com> * Alex Band > Could you give us some context how you would want to use this data, > and what you currently are not capable of doing using for example the > RIPE Database? Hi, Take a look at proposal 2012-05 in apwg. One of its goals is to ensure that the origin and recipient of allocation transfers are public information. I agree with this goal, and will likely find it very interesting to follow transfers happening in the coming months. Much of this information is already easily available on the FTP, however. The name and reg-id of the holding LIR are available in alloclist.txt, while the prefix and date of allocation is available in both alloclist.txt and delegated-ripencc-extended-latest. The only thing I cannot easily find, is the historic information of which LIR held an allocation previously. (If I have simply missed it, please point me to it and stop reading.) It occurs to me that by adding a LIR/reg-id column in delegated-ripencc-extended-latest, and/or to publish historic versions of alloclist.txt, the information sought by 2012-05 (and as an added bonus, information about the origin of returned resources) would be easily obtainable from the FTP. To avoid any privacy issues, the LIR/reg-id column in the delegated file could be left empty for assigned resources - I believe that would mean that no previously unpublished information would need to be made public. Is this doable, you think? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Sep 5 12:12:24 2012 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:12:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] ERX stands for "legacy", was Re: Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders In-Reply-To: References: <237A4A74-82BB-46DB-807B-8008B3D2272B@ripe.net> <6C908880-60AF-4042-924C-D6C93A6BC58A@steffann.nl> <27B732A9-6545-4B9D-A48A-25D67BD98DBC@ucd.ie> <5.1.1.6.2.20120824100848.01fcfcd0@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120825212546.01fb0138@efes.iucc.ac.il> <91F9BCE1-2D67-4115-ABD0-92F2CD2E57A4@netability.ie> <50395B25.2050703@SURFnet.nl> <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DDF60.8090602@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <20120905121224.4391d31d@shane-desktop> Randy, On Wednesday, 2012-08-29 17:07:14 +0700, Randy Bush wrote: > naive question before we switch terms. is > > erx == legacy > > i.e. pre-ncc? no strange corner cases? ERX stands for "early registration transfer". It was the inter-RIR project (I believe between the RIPE NCC, APNIC, and ARIN) designed to make life easier by getting these out of the ARIN database if they made more sense elsewhere. IIRC, the motivation is that it was a pain for people to deal with ARIN if they were many time zones away, and separated by cultural differences. So, if you got a /16 from SRI back in 1990 but your network is in Denmark, then you probably already deal with the RIPE NCC for other things and would prefer not to have to figure out yet another confusing bureaucracy for updating contact and reverse DNS details on that one network. Plus it means that ARIN only has to deal with Americans, which I guess they like. ;) Looking at it from ARIN's point of view, they initially inherited all of their addresses from Network Solutions, so everything pre-1998 could be considered "legacy". From the RIPE NCC's point of view, these were actively transferred in during 2002, so I'm not sure the same term applies, although I suppose it is as good as any other. For the record, I think the treatment - both now and proposed - of ERX space is fundamentally unfair. OTOH, I also don't think it really matters too much in the long run, and a little unfairness is not the worst thing in the world. :) -- Shane From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Sep 5 13:19:19 2012 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:19:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management, was Re: Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders In-Reply-To: <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120824100848.01fcfcd0@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120825212546.01fb0138@efes.iucc.ac.il> <91F9BCE1-2D67-4115-ABD0-92F2CD2E57A4@netability.ie> <50395B25.2050703@SURFnet.nl> <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> Gert, On Wednesday, 2012-08-29 12:21:35 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > due to the way RPSL-authentication and DNS tree'ing work, this is not > easy to do in a non-hierarchical structure, so "having this done by > the RIPE NCC" makes sense from a technical point of view. While it is true that DNS is hierarchical, there is no particular reason that the RIPE NCC or any RIR has to be the one managing the reverse DNS. > OTOH, I can see that the NCC wants to see some money in exchange for > the expenses running all this (and that seems to make sense as > well :-) ). If it's too costly, I assure you that there are several DNS companies that would be happy to take over the task. -- Shane From gert at space.net Wed Sep 5 15:56:01 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:56:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management, was Re: Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders In-Reply-To: <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> References: <91F9BCE1-2D67-4115-ABD0-92F2CD2E57A4@netability.ie> <50395B25.2050703@SURFnet.nl> <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> Message-ID: <20120905135601.GM13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:19:19PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > On Wednesday, 2012-08-29 12:21:35 +0200, > Gert Doering wrote: > > > > due to the way RPSL-authentication and DNS tree'ing work, this is not > > easy to do in a non-hierarchical structure, so "having this done by > > the RIPE NCC" makes sense from a technical point of view. > > While it is true that DNS is hierarchical, there is no particular > reason that the RIPE NCC or any RIR has to be the one managing the > reverse DNS. True. One the things that speaks in favour of having the RIR do so is "they have the authentication machinery in place". Someone else tasked to run reverse DNS for 194/8 would have to basically copy the RIPE database to be able to judge who is permitted to make changes to "their" DNS delegations ("their" being defined by *RIR* delegation data)... Not that it can't be done, but I don't see any benefit in doing so, unless the service provided by the RIRs degrades to the point where someone else can do better for less cost. > > OTOH, I can see that the NCC wants to see some money in exchange for > > the expenses running all this (and that seems to make sense as > > well :-) ). > > If it's too costly, I assure you that there are several DNS companies > that would be happy to take over the task. So, how would you authenticate that I'm authorized or not to have a DNS delegation for 30.195.in-addr.arpa? Without help of the RIPE NCC? "Being able to run a DNS server" is not the difficult part here (though that seems to be surprisingly difficult in itself, occasionally). 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 shane at time-travellers.org Wed Sep 5 16:53:41 2012 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:53:41 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management In-Reply-To: <20120905135601.GM13776@Space.Net> References: <91F9BCE1-2D67-4115-ABD0-92F2CD2E57A4@netability.ie> <50395B25.2050703@SURFnet.nl> <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> <20120905135601.GM13776@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120905165341.70464fc7@shane-desktop> Gert, On Wednesday, 2012-09-05 15:56:01 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > If it's too costly, I assure you that there are several DNS > > companies that would be happy to take over the task. > > So, how would you authenticate that I'm authorized or not to have a > DNS delegation for 30.195.in-addr.arpa? Without help of the RIPE NCC? People seem to be able to manage this on the routing side today, so presumably those mechanisms would work here too. But of course it would be even better to have explicit authorization mechanisms. Perhaps the RIRs could develop some sort of address certification technology... ;) I'm not seriously proposing separating DNS management from the RIPE NCC, merely pointing out that all because things have always been done that way doesn't mean that the necessarily have to be done that way. -- Shane -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed Sep 5 22:01:45 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:01:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management In-Reply-To: <20120905165341.70464fc7@shane-desktop> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> <20120905135601.GM13776@Space.Net> <20120905165341.70464fc7@shane-desktop> Message-ID: <20120905200145.GV13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:53:41PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > On Wednesday, 2012-09-05 15:56:01 +0200, > Gert Doering wrote: > > > If it's too costly, I assure you that there are several DNS > > > companies that would be happy to take over the task. > > > > So, how would you authenticate that I'm authorized or not to have a > > DNS delegation for 30.195.in-addr.arpa? Without help of the RIPE NCC? > > People seem to be able to manage this on the routing side today, so > presumably those mechanisms would work here too. Do they? What I've seen here that *works* is "query the RIPE DB for the published route(6): objects for a given AS number, and accept that". What I've seen that does *not* work is "believe if the customer tells you that they own a given network" - one /24 out of my address space was announced by a foreign AS, and their upstream *opened up* their filters to permit it, because the customer called and yelled at them... I'm not aware of any IRRDB *that is properly authenticated* that is not run along the RIR hierarchy - RADB is nice, but since anyone can register anything there, it's worthless for actual verification against purposeful misdoings (or sufficiently advanced fat fingers). RPKI is another option - using RIR hierarchy. > But of course it would be even better to have explicit authorization > mechanisms. Perhaps the RIRs could develop some sort of address > certification technology... ;) That could be done, yes. Using the PKI tech for "DNSOA" certification - but that smells like much more effort than to just run the DNS servers :-) > I'm not seriously proposing separating DNS management from the RIPE NCC, > merely pointing out that all because things have always been done that > way doesn't mean that the necessarily have to be done that way. I agree with you - but still it's enormously comfortable to use the existing knowledge about address space ownership :-) 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 shane at time-travellers.org Thu Sep 6 11:55:23 2012 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:55:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management In-Reply-To: <20120905200145.GV13776@Space.Net> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> <20120905135601.GM13776@Space.Net> <20120905165341.70464fc7@shane-desktop> <20120905200145.GV13776@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120906115523.59ae6b2b@shane-desktop> Gert, On Wednesday, 2012-09-05 22:01:45 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:53:41PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > On Wednesday, 2012-09-05 15:56:01 +0200, > > Gert Doering wrote: > > > So, how would you authenticate that I'm authorized or not to have > > > a DNS delegation for 30.195.in-addr.arpa? Without help of the > > > RIPE NCC? > > > > People seem to be able to manage this on the routing side today, so > > presumably those mechanisms would work here too. > > Do they? > > What I've seen here that *works* is "query the RIPE DB for the > published route(6): objects for a given AS number, and accept that". Yes, this. :) For the DNS side, it could be something as simple as saying "add the comment $RANDOM_TOKEN as a comment to your DOMAIN object". Or even better, using the PGP or X.509 of the address maintainer to authenticate the request. > > But of course it would be even better to have explicit authorization > > mechanisms. Perhaps the RIRs could develop some sort of address > > certification technology... ;) > > That could be done, yes. Using the PKI tech for "DNSOA" > certification - but that smells like much more effort than to just > run the DNS servers :-) The initial authentication - and presumably periodic checks - should come from the RIR. There are a few real benefits that could result from a dedicated DNS service though. The biggest benefit would likely be from a service that was not simply a delegation-only service, but also acted as a DNS hoster, either as the primary or secondary source. Of course you can arrange that on your own today, but one-stop-shopping has some value. Also, a service could work across multiple RIRs, so you could manage your worldwide reverse DNS from a single place. (I admit this is not such a big deal, since there are only a few RIRs and any organization spread across multiple regions won't have a huge problem tracking these details.) In order to work across multiple RIRs, it might need to look a bit like a DNS registrar, rather than a registry, since you may not want a single organization controlling the entire reverse DNS. Again, this isn't a serious proposal. It's less serious than when I propose eliminating reverse DNS altogether, at least. :) -- Shane -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mir at ripe.net Thu Sep 6 16:32:04 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:32:04 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Root Server Instances in Member Networks Message-ID: <5048B3E4.8030909@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Please find a proposal on RIPE Labs how to create member instances of K-root and how to implement this during a pilot phase: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/root-servers-in-member-networks Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From randy at psg.com Fri Sep 7 10:03:18 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:03:18 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIR DNS management, was Re: Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders In-Reply-To: <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120824100848.01fcfcd0@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120825212546.01fb0138@efes.iucc.ac.il> <91F9BCE1-2D67-4115-ABD0-92F2CD2E57A4@netability.ie> <50395B25.2050703@SURFnet.nl> <5.1.1.6.2.20120828193856.00397160@efes.iucc.ac.il> <5.1.1.6.2.20120829025024.01f06a68@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503D6B00.7000605@elabnet.de> <20120829090508.GQ13776@Space.Net> <5C85B133-7177-4A6C-AF85-8AD763C7B266@rfc1035.com> <503DEA1B.4030602@titley.com> <20120829102135.GS13776@Space.Net> <20120905131919.76455f4b@shane-desktop> Message-ID: >> OTOH, I can see that the NCC wants to see some money in exchange for >> the expenses running all this (and that seems to make sense as well >> :-) ). > If it's too costly, I assure you that there are several DNS companies > that would be happy to take over the task. for the nonce, let's assume we are a community trying to come together over an old process gap. let's take the high ground on this one. randy From mir at ripe.net Tue Sep 11 11:56:01 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:56:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Registration History for Members - A Demo In-Reply-To: <504F0A7D.3030507@ripe.net> References: <504F0A7D.3030507@ripe.net> Message-ID: <504F0AB1.8010000@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Please see a new article on RIPE Labs describing a way to look at registration history in RIPEstat. This is a first demo and is only available to members: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/registration-history-for-members-a-demo Please note the request for feedback at the end of the article. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Sep 11 14:20:16 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:20:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) 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/2012-07 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 October 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From alexb at ripe.net Tue Sep 11 14:30:27 2012 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] LIR association with number resources In-Reply-To: <504702C6.20400@redpill-linpro.com> References: <50192CD8.7000107@inex.ie> <20120801134343.GB38127@Space.Net> <504702C6.20400@redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: Hi Tore, I wanted to research all the details and wait for some developments to unfold before replying to the list. As Mirjam just posted, Daniel published a RIPE Labs article describing a way for members to look at registration history in RIPEstat: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/registration-history-for-members-a-demo An important point Daniel makes in the article is "We would like to demonstrate what we can make available if there is consensus among the membership that we should." The way the information in RIPEstat is presented, is that a member can only do a query on a single prefix at a time, with restrictions in place to prevent excessive resource usage. One of the implementation suggestions you do in your email, is to *publicly* present historic data in *aggregate form*, for example by publishing historic versions of alloclist.txt. This goes quite a bit further than what we are demoing in RIPEstat at the moment. We will definitely need more discussion on this topic to make sure there is consensus on what exactly we should offer. Cheers, Alex On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:44, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Alex Band > >> Could you give us some context how you would want to use this data, >> and what you currently are not capable of doing using for example the >> RIPE Database? > > Hi, > > Take a look at proposal 2012-05 in apwg. One of its goals is to ensure > that the origin and recipient of allocation transfers are public > information. I agree with this goal, and will likely find it very > interesting to follow transfers happening in the coming months. > > Much of this information is already easily available on the FTP, > however. The name and reg-id of the holding LIR are available in > alloclist.txt, while the prefix and date of allocation is available in > both alloclist.txt and delegated-ripencc-extended-latest. The only thing > I cannot easily find, is the historic information of which LIR held an > allocation previously. (If I have simply missed it, please point me to > it and stop reading.) > > It occurs to me that by adding a LIR/reg-id column in > delegated-ripencc-extended-latest, and/or to publish historic versions > of alloclist.txt, the information sought by 2012-05 (and as an added > bonus, information about the origin of returned resources) would be > easily obtainable from the FTP. To avoid any privacy issues, the > LIR/reg-id column in the delegated file could be left empty for assigned > resources - I believe that would mean that no previously unpublished > information would need to be made public. Is this doable, you think? > > Best regards, > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at netability.ie Tue Sep 11 14:36:04 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:36:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> Message-ID: <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> On 11/09/2012 13:20, Emilio Madaio wrote: > 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/2012-07 Unless I'm mistaken, this is an almost verbatim copy of what Niall posted to this list on Aug 22 18:28:48. Some way down that discussion, Niall noted: > Background work on a new version of the policy proposal > has begun. It is premature for me to say more at this stage. So, given that it appears that the proposers of this policy are interested in a new version, is it appropriate for people to comment on this version? Perhaps a rep of one of the policy proposers could clarify this? thanks, Nick From sander at steffann.nl Wed Sep 12 01:42:49 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:42:49 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> Message-ID: <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> Hi Nick, >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 > > Unless I'm mistaken, this is an almost verbatim copy of what Niall posted > to this list on Aug 22 18:28:48. Correct > Some way down that discussion, Niall noted: > >> Background work on a new version of the policy proposal >> has begun. It is premature for me to say more at this stage. > > So, given that it appears that the proposers of this policy are interested > in a new version, is it appropriate for people to comment on this version? Yes please! One thing we realised when talking about the current text is that it is more than just a policy proposal. It also contains historic stuff and summaries of other documents. We (the proposers) are thinking about cutting away the informational text (probably to put it in a separate informational document) to leave only the real policy related text. So all comments are still greatly appreciated! They will certainly be taken into account for either the final policy text or the informational text. > Perhaps a rep of one of the policy proposers could clarify this? I hope I have :-) Sander From mir at ripe.net Wed Sep 12 11:27:00 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:27:00 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] List of Statistics now Available on RIPE Labs Message-ID: <50505564.7070100@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, You can now find various statistics provided by the RIPE NCC in one place on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/ We'll be further improving this page and adding to it over time. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let us know. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From natalia.perez at i-systems.es Wed Sep 12 12:00:22 2012 From: natalia.perez at i-systems.es (Natalia Perez Salamanca) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:00:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] automated response Message-ID: <11209121200.AA1533702527@correo.i-systems.es> Estar? fuera de la oficina hasta el pr?ximo d?a 25 de septiembre de 2012. Si tienen alguna consulta urgente p?nganse en contacto con nosotros en el tel?fono 917895800. Gracias Un saludo, Natalia P?rez Salamanca From nick at netability.ie Wed Sep 12 12:39:00 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:39:00 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> On 12/09/2012 00:42, Sander Steffann wrote: > One thing we realised when talking about the current text is that it is > more than just a policy proposal. It also contains historic stuff and > summaries of other documents. We (the proposers) are thinking about > cutting away the informational text (probably to put it in a separate > informational document) to leave only the real policy related text. > > So all comments are still greatly appreciated! They will certainly be > taken into account for either the final policy text or the informational > text. ok. my main concerns about it are: 1. it doesn't establish a quid pro quo between the erx holders and the ripe ncc. It looks to me like all the obligations are on the RIPE NCC and that the ERX holders have no obligations whatsoever. This is not - and cannot become - the basis of a functional relationship between the RIPE NCC and the ERX holders because the basis of any functional relationship between two entities must be a quid pro quo. 2. there is a lot of talk about the rights of ERX holders in this document. I'm unclear on why the proposers believe that the RIPE community has the competence to issue statements of rights like this, given that they don't believe that the RIPE community has the competence to create policies concerning this address space. You can't have it both ways. 3. suggesting policy statements which cannot be undone by future policy statements seems...odd. 4. it's unclear to me to what extent the policy document represents the consensus viewpoint of the ERX holder community. I have a lot of other smaller concerns, but this is more than enough to start with. In short, I can't really see how this document could become the basis of an agreement between the RIPE NCC and the ERX holders. Daniel's email to ncc-services-wg of Aug 29 16:37:07 CEST 2012 seems like a much more sensible starting point. Nick From sander at steffann.nl Wed Sep 12 13:17:03 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:17:03 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> Message-ID: Hi Nick, > ok. my main concerns about it are: > > 1. it doesn't establish a quid pro quo between the erx holders and the ripe > ncc. It looks to me like all the obligations are on the RIPE NCC and that > the ERX holders have no obligations whatsoever. This is not - and cannot > become - the basis of a functional relationship between the RIPE NCC and > the ERX holders because the basis of any functional relationship between > two entities must be a quid pro quo. I don't agree at all with you here. The proposal says that the RIPE NCC has to deliver certain services (registry + reverse DNS) and that the legacy resource holders have to sign contracts (and very probably have to pay some money, like with 2007-01) and maintain their data in the registry. The goal of the recent actions of the RIPE NCC was to make the registry data more accurate, and I think that is a very important goal. The RIPE NCC officially has no 'rights' over the legacy resources as they were given to the holders before the RIPE NCC even existed, so this proposal tries to provide a framework to establish a formal relationship so that the registry can be properly maintained. > 2. there is a lot of talk about the rights of ERX holders in this document. > I'm unclear on why the proposers believe that the RIPE community has the > competence to issue statements of rights like this, given that they don't > believe that the RIPE community has the competence to create policies > concerning this address space. You can't have it both ways. I very much dislike your usage of the word 'competence'. I don't think it's appropriate here. The thing is that currently the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community have no rights regarding legacy resources. The legacy resource holders are afraid that signing contracts (directly or indirectly) with the RIPE NCC will make them lose certain rights. The current template contracts distributed by the RIPE NCC (see http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/template-legacy-space-agreement) contain text like "We are aware that from the moment that the address space mentioned above is registered in our LIR account, it will be considered as address space distributed to us by the RIPE NCC. It will then be subject to relevant RIPE policies and RIPE NCC procedures." and this is not acceptable to many legacy resource holders. The reaction to these texts was to explicitly make sure that rights were not lost in the policy proposal. The problem is that the current situation for legacy resource holders seemed to be "If you want your reverse DNS to work you have to give up all your legacy rights to your address space". More recent communication from the NCC seems much more relaxed, but the contracts still contain that wording... > 3. suggesting policy statements which cannot be undone by future policy > statements seems...odd. I fully agree, but I also understand that legacy holders don't want to sign contracts that currently let them keep their rights but in the future might take them away. The reason that this policy proposal is in the NCC Services working group is that legacy resource holders would like certain services like registry updates and reverse DNS to keep working and they don't mind contributing financially to running the RIPE NCC, but they don't want any address policies to affect them since that address space was not given to them by the RIPE NCC in the first place. > 4. it's unclear to me to what extent the policy document represents the > consensus viewpoint of the ERX holder community. I'll leave that question for ERX holders to answer :-) > I have a lot of other smaller concerns, but this is more than enough to > start with. > > In short, I can't really see how this document could become the basis of an > agreement between the RIPE NCC and the ERX holders. Daniel's email to > ncc-services-wg of Aug 29 16:37:07 CEST 2012 seems like a much more > sensible starting point. I agree. I think we have to focus on "So what we have to decide as a community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less.". The recent actions by the RIPE NCC have caused some fear and frustration amongst the legacy resource holders, and the current policy proposal reflects that. The next version of this policy proposal should remove that and focus on what Daniel said (+ reverse DNS services I think). Thanks, Sander PS: Daniel said in his post that "The RIPE community has carefully avoided to make legacy address space subject to address space *distribution* policies, such as utilisation criteria.". I fully agree with this, but unfortunately this is not reflected in the template contracts as mentioned above. From nick at netability.ie Wed Sep 12 13:26:18 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:26:18 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> Message-ID: <5050715A.2090607@netability.ie> On 12/09/2012 12:17, Sander Steffann wrote: > I very much dislike your usage of the word 'competence'. I don't think it's appropriate here. Oops sorry, I meant "competent" in the legal sense. This is a specific legal use of the word which just means "within jurisdiction" in this context. It has no negative connotations whatever. Nick From sander at steffann.nl Wed Sep 12 13:43:09 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:43:09 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <5050715A.2090607@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> <5050715A.2090607@netability.ie> Message-ID: <4CB6EED3-297B-4992-BA84-6394A11BC771@steffann.nl> Hi Nick, >> I very much dislike your usage of the word 'competence'. I don't think it's appropriate here. > > Oops sorry, I meant "competent" in the legal sense. This is a specific > legal use of the word which just means "within jurisdiction" in this > context. It has no negative connotations whatever. Ah, ok :-) I'm not that familiar with legal terms ;-) Thanks! Sander From sander at steffann.nl Wed Sep 12 14:03:42 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:03:42 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <20120912120257.GD11349@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> <20120912120257.GD11349@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Hi Sasha, > I'd support the proposal but for a disagreement with the wording in (ia) s5.5: > > "In the case that the holder of a legacy Internet resource opts to engage via a sponsoring LIR and wishes to avail only of basic services > as defined above, assessment of the billing category of the sponsoring > LIR should take account of the legacy resource using a score or rate > less than that applicable for a corresponding PI resource" > > I've always taken the position that resources that are not controlled, > merely sponsored, by a LIR should not count into the billing category > calculations for that LIR, and thus cannot agree with any proposal that > can be construed to cement this practice for the forseeable future. I agree that text related to billing categories should be left out of the next version of the proposal. Thanks, Sander From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Sep 12 14:02:57 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:02:57 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20120912120257.GD11349@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:17:03PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: >I agree. I think we have to focus on "So what we have to decide as a >community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy >space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet >Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less.". The recent actions by >the RIPE NCC have caused some fear and frustration amongst the legacy >resource holders, and the current policy proposal reflects that. The >next version of this policy proposal should remove that and focus on >what Daniel said (+ reverse DNS services I think). I think it's simple: Which is the higher good, a high-quality ripedb or control of the ERX space? IMO, that is for the *community* to decide, and therefore gives the *community* standing to make such policy. If the ripedb quality is the goal, I have no problems with a policy framework that imposes no obligations on the ERX holders vis-a-vis the NCC. Even requiring payment might be detrimental to this goal as some ERX holders might not want to pay and don't care about db entries... I'd support the proposal but for a disagreement with the wording in (ia) s5.5: "In the case that the holder of a legacy Internet resource opts to engage via a sponsoring LIR and wishes to avail only of basic services as defined above, assessment of the billing category of the sponsoring LIR should take account of the legacy resource using a score or rate less than that applicable for a corresponding PI resource" I've always taken the position that resources that are not controlled, merely sponsored, by a LIR should not count into the billing category calculations for that LIR, and thus cannot agree with any proposal that can be construed to cement this practice for the forseeable future. rgds, Sascha Luck From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Sep 12 18:40:15 2012 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:40:15 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> Message-ID: <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:36, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Unless I'm mistaken, this is an almost verbatim copy of what Niall posted > to this list on Aug 22 18:28:48. Some way down that discussion, Niall noted: > >> Background work on a new version of the policy proposal >> has begun. It is premature for me to say more at this stage. > > So, given that it appears that the proposers of this policy are interested > in a new version, is it appropriate for people to comment on this version? > > Perhaps a rep of one of the policy proposers could clarify this? Sander already responded, but I'ld like to add a few words. The document which, mea culpa, I inappropriately released to the mailing list on 22 August, contains what was intended by the authors as version 1 of a policy proposal. The document formally released by Emilio as version 1 of policy proposal 2012-07 is indeed essentially identical. My intent, which Emilio took every care to accommodate, was to minimize the potential for confusion that seemed inevitable in case there was a significant difference between the two documents. I acknowledge responsibility for this decision, thank Emilio for his meticulous support, and thank Bijal and Kurtis for their continued understanding. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly From pk at DENIC.DE Thu Sep 13 14:43:51 2012 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:43:51 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> Niall, > The document which, mea culpa, I inappropriately released to the just as a side note: i do not understand this sentiment. Nowhere does it say that policy ideas and proposals cannot be discussed on WG mailing lists before formal submission. > authors as version 1 of a policy proposal. The document formally > released by Emilio as version 1 of policy proposal 2012-07 is > indeed essentially identical. So, I understand this is to ensure the legacy resource holders of the continued, unconstrained and, at least in part, free of charge, access to certain services that are tightly bound to the then registration (well, back then it was an assignment even if practices predate the term). I would like to see some motivation why this subject to the PDP at all rather than, maybe, an issue for the NCC AGM (not taking a position, but asking for clarification) because it in part looks like a service fee waiver. If there was a policy to instantiate, the infinite perpetuation clause in section 6.3 appears to me like a non starter. However, if this is more the expression of an opinion or legal standpoint, then it should be made visible as such. Which leaves me to conclude that most of what is proposed is actually not a proposal but a memorandum of understanding (or simply an acknowledgement) of the "rights" of legacy resource holders with respect to today's governance framework and service environment. It is much more deductive than constructive, so again the question is why the PDP is appropriate (and also, why this can be appropriately addressed by collective action). In any case, I would question the part where the "rights" are attached to the resource rather than the historic assignment act. Looking forward to the edited next version. -Peter From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Sep 13 15:41:54 2012 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:41:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Registration History for Members - A Demo In-Reply-To: <504F0AB1.8010000@ripe.net> References: <504F0A7D.3030507@ripe.net> <504F0AB1.8010000@ripe.net> Message-ID: <600179F1-DF41-4B6F-BE1B-0A9D5DFB36BE@ripe.net> On 11.09.2012, at 11:56 , Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > [apologies for duplicates] > > Dear colleagues, > > Please see a new article on RIPE Labs describing a way to look at > registration history in RIPEstat. This is a first demo and is only > available to members: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/registration-history-for-members-a-demo > > Please note the request for feedback at the end of the article. So far we have had 9 member users trying this. Given the repeated requests for it I am somewhat surprised. We are also looking for any concerns from the membership about confidentiality issues with this particular presentation. Please also tell us whether we should extend the demo period beyond the end of the RIPE meeting. Daniel From randy at psg.com Thu Sep 13 15:43:43 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:43:43 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> Message-ID: >> The document which, mea culpa, I inappropriately released to the > just as a side note: i do not understand this sentiment. Nowhere does > it say that policy ideas and proposals cannot be discussed on WG > mailing lists before formal submission. however it seems to have become a policy proposal whether we like it or not. and as such it seems to have some formal restrictions on being updated, whether we like it or not. > So, I understand this is to ensure the legacy resource holders of the > continued, unconstrained and, at least in part, free of charge, access > to certain services that are tightly bound to the then registration i believe you understand incorrectly. the words "unconstrained" and "free of charge" are yours. > I would like to see some motivation why this subject to the PDP at all > rather than, maybe, an issue for the NCC AGM (not taking a position, > but asking for clarification) because it in part looks like a service > fee waiver. there are far more issues than fees, which i believe are the purview of the AGM. and i believe what is being asked to be considered is in fact to pay for services now received for free. but there are also issues of address policy and similar. > Looking forward to the edited next version. as are many. i think folk are figuring out how to do that within the rule trap into which it has fallen. randy From nick at netability.ie Thu Sep 13 17:10:40 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:10:40 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> Message-ID: <5051F770.10605@netability.ie> Hi Sander, > I don't agree at all with you here. The proposal says that the RIPE NCC > has to deliver certain services (registry + reverse DNS) and that the > legacy resource holders have to sign contracts (and very probably have > to pay some money, like with 2007-01) and maintain their data in the > registry. I read it differently, in that there was no requirement for erx holders to sign anything if they chose not to, and that if they chose not to, the policy proposal required that the RIPE NCC would still provide services indefinitely. Could you confirm whether this is the case? > The current template contracts distributed by the RIPE NCC (see > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/template-legacy-space-agreement) > contain text like "We are aware that from the moment that the address > space mentioned above is registered in our LIR account, it will be > considered as address space distributed to us by the RIPE NCC. It will > then be subject to relevant RIPE policies and RIPE NCC procedures." and > this is not acceptable to many legacy resource holders. The reaction to > these texts was to explicitly make sure that rights were not lost in the > policy proposal. Yep, I see the issue here, except that these documents are now redundant, as far as I can tell from what Nigel said a couple of weeks ago. Could someone from the RIPE NCC clarify the position here? My understanding - and again I am open to correction on this - is that we are now where we were pre Oct 2011: everything is on the table for discussion, ERX holders are able to update their objects as before and the RIPE NCC are not moving forward with the mandatory ERX agreement that you referred to. > The problem is that the current situation for legacy resource holders > seemed to be "If you want your reverse DNS to work you have to give up > all your legacy rights to your address space". More recent communication > from the NCC seems much more relaxed, but the contracts still contain > that wording... If the contracts no longer reflect the position of the RIPE NCC, this should be made clear by either removing them or else by making a statement to the effect that the URLs + contract are no longer applicable. It would be really helpful if we had a statement from the RIPE NCC on this. >> 3. suggesting policy statements which cannot be undone by future policy >> statements seems...odd. > > I fully agree, but I also understand that legacy holders don't want to > sign contracts that currently let them keep their rights but in the > future might take them away. Can the RIPE Community create a policy that the RIPE Community cannot change? I seem to remember that there are a bunch of somewhat narcissistic philosophical treatises on this particular subject. But at a more practical level, I don't really see that this position is either possible or necessary. It's certainly contentious. > The reason that this policy proposal is in the NCC Services working > group is that legacy resource holders would like certain services like > registry updates and reverse DNS to keep working and they don't mind > contributing financially to running the RIPE NCC, but they don't want > any address policies to affect them since that address space was not > given to them by the RIPE NCC in the first place. Completely reasonable. >> 4. it's unclear to me to what extent the policy document represents the >> consensus viewpoint of the ERX holder community. > > I'll leave that question for ERX holders to answer :-) Nicely dodged :-) > I agree. I think we have to focus on "So what we have to decide as a > community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy > space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet > Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less.". The recent actions by the > RIPE NCC have caused some fear and frustration amongst the legacy > resource holders, and the current policy proposal reflects that. The > next version of this policy proposal should remove that and focus on > what Daniel said (+ reverse DNS services I think). Ok. In the interim, I think we need some clarity from the RIPE NCC about the status of the content on the web tree with this root: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Nick From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Sep 13 18:20:04 2012 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:20:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> Message-ID: <0AAC1300-37FE-4E02-B8CE-5FCE4AD32E86@ucd.ie> On 13 Sep 2012, at 14:43, Randy Bush wrote: > [Peter Koch] >> Looking forward to the edited next version. > > as are many. i think folk are figuring out how to do that within the > rule trap into which it has fallen. Besides, we have to finish editing it first. 8-) One of the slides I'm drafting, and which I expect will be shown at RIPE 65, currently looks like this: -------- Policy Proposal 2012-07 (version 2) * Shorter * No need to itemize defence of what is not under threat * Focus: * registration and related services * fair access to services for legacy resource holders -------- It may save us all much time and effort if further discussion on this list is focussed along these lines, as indeed some of the discussion to date has been. ATB /Niall From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Sep 13 18:21:20 2012 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:21:20 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> <20120913124351.GE7055@x28.adm.denic.de> Message-ID: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:43, Peter Koch wrote: > Niall, [ceterum censeo] I'm not ignoring you, Peter, but Randy already did a good job of answering. ATB /Niall From sander at steffann.nl Thu Sep 13 22:33:02 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:33:02 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <5051F770.10605@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> <5051F770.10605@netability.ie> Message-ID: Hi Nick, >> I don't agree at all with you here. The proposal says that the RIPE NCC >> has to deliver certain services (registry + reverse DNS) and that the >> legacy resource holders have to sign contracts (and very probably have >> to pay some money, like with 2007-01) and maintain their data in the >> registry. > > I read it differently, in that there was no requirement for erx holders to > sign anything if they chose not to, and that if they chose not to, the > policy proposal required that the RIPE NCC would still provide services > indefinitely. Could you confirm whether this is the case? Well, that is still an ongoing discussion. So far we have been looking at legacy resource holders that want to cooperate with the RIPE NCC. What happens when a legacy resource holder refuses to sign anything should be discussed here I think. My personal opinion is that at least a best effort attempt should be made to always keep the RIPE database as accurate as possible, even without any signed contracts. That is because keeping the RIPE database accurate is important for the whole community, not just for the legacy resource holder. > [...] > > Ok. In the interim, I think we need some clarity from the RIPE NCC about > the status of the content on the web tree with this root: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Yes, I would also appreciate that! Sander From andrea at ripe.net Fri Sep 14 14:27:10 2012 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:27:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <5051F770.10605@netability.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <03B2067C-19F7-4F0E-A8A5-634B97CCDBFC@steffann.nl> <50506644.9070908@netability.ie> <5051F770.10605@netability.ie> Message-ID: <5053229E.2080003@ripe.net> Dear Nick, All, On 9/13/12 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I don't agree at all with you here. The proposal says that the RIPE NCC >> has to deliver certain services (registry + reverse DNS) and that the >> legacy resource holders have to sign contracts (and very probably have >> to pay some money, like with 2007-01) and maintain their data in the >> registry. > I read it differently, in that there was no requirement for erx holders to > sign anything if they chose not to, and that if they chose not to, the > policy proposal required that the RIPE NCC would still provide services > indefinitely. Could you confirm whether this is the case? > >> The current template contracts distributed by the RIPE NCC (see >> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/template-legacy-space-agreement) >> contain text like "We are aware that from the moment that the address >> space mentioned above is registered in our LIR account, it will be >> considered as address space distributed to us by the RIPE NCC. It will >> then be subject to relevant RIPE policies and RIPE NCC procedures." and >> this is not acceptable to many legacy resource holders. The reaction to >> these texts was to explicitly make sure that rights were not lost in the >> policy proposal. > Yep, I see the issue here, except that these documents are now redundant, > as far as I can tell from what Nigel said a couple of weeks ago. Could > someone from the RIPE NCC clarify the position here? The references to the possible freeze of RIPE Database objects and reverse DNS services have been removed, as per the emails from Nigel and Andrew to this list. The RIPE NCC receives requests from legacy address space holders to register their resources on a weekly basis. When this happens we make them aware that if they do not want to register, their RIPE Database objects will not be frozen and that we will continue to provide rDNS services. Additionally we direct them to this discussion. If they still wish to register their legacy resources, we ask them to fill out and submit the document which is found on our website. For this reason, amongst others, the documents and webpage in question are still valid. Finally, since the start of this discussion we have ceased contacting non-LIR legacy resource holders (phase 3), as we are awaiting the outcome of this policy proposal. > My understanding - and again I am open to correction on this - is that we > are now where we were pre Oct 2011: everything is on the table for > discussion, ERX holders are able to update their objects as before and the > RIPE NCC are not moving forward with the mandatory ERX agreement that you > referred to. Changing the relationship with legacy resource holders that have signed an agreement with the RIPE NCC can be done retroactively, based on the outcome of this policy proposal. I would like to add that during this project the RIPE NCC has not frozen any resources or denied any services. >> The problem is that the current situation for legacy resource holders >> seemed to be "If you want your reverse DNS to work you have to give up >> all your legacy rights to your address space". More recent communication >> from the NCC seems much more relaxed, but the contracts still contain >> that wording... > If the contracts no longer reflect the position of the RIPE NCC, this > should be made clear by either removing them or else by making a statement > to the effect that the URLs + contract are no longer applicable. It would > be really helpful if we had a statement from the RIPE NCC on this. The contract on our website does not contain any references to reverse DNS. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/template-legacy-space-agreement Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services RIPE NCC >>> 3. suggesting policy statements which cannot be undone by future policy >>> statements seems...odd. >> I fully agree, but I also understand that legacy holders don't want to >> sign contracts that currently let them keep their rights but in the >> future might take them away. > Can the RIPE Community create a policy that the RIPE Community cannot > change? I seem to remember that there are a bunch of somewhat narcissistic > philosophical treatises on this particular subject. > > But at a more practical level, I don't really see that this position is > either possible or necessary. It's certainly contentious. > >> The reason that this policy proposal is in the NCC Services working >> group is that legacy resource holders would like certain services like >> registry updates and reverse DNS to keep working and they don't mind >> contributing financially to running the RIPE NCC, but they don't want >> any address policies to affect them since that address space was not >> given to them by the RIPE NCC in the first place. > Completely reasonable. > >>> 4. it's unclear to me to what extent the policy document represents the >>> consensus viewpoint of the ERX holder community. >> I'll leave that question for ERX holders to answer :-) > Nicely dodged :-) > >> I agree. I think we have to focus on "So what we have to decide as a >> community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy >> space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet >> Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less.". The recent actions by the >> RIPE NCC have caused some fear and frustration amongst the legacy >> resource holders, and the current policy proposal reflects that. The >> next version of this policy proposal should remove that and focus on >> what Daniel said (+ reverse DNS services I think). > Ok. In the interim, I think we need some clarity from the RIPE NCC about > the status of the content on the web tree with this root: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space > > Nick > > > From ncc at ripe.net Fri Sep 14 15:40:08 2012 From: ncc at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:40:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Begins to Allocate IPv4 Address Space From the Last /8 Message-ID: <505333B8.70400@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, On Friday, 14 September 2012, the RIPE NCC, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, distributed the last blocks of IPv4 address space from the available pool. This means that we are now distributing IPv4 address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) from the last /8 according to section 5.6 of "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This section states that an LIR may receive one /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses), even if they can justify a larger allocation. This /22 allocation will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. No new IPv4 Provider Independent (PI) space will be assigned. This policy can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553 Those members with open requests for IPv4 address space will shortly receive an email regarding the status of their requests. It is now imperative that all stakeholders deploy IPv6 on their networks to ensure the continuity of their online operations and the future growth of the Internet. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC More Information ----------------- For more information on IPv6 and its deployment, advice from experts and where to get training, please see: http://www.ipv6actnow.org/ For more information on reaching the last /8, please see: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Mon Sep 17 15:59:54 2012 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:59:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) In-Reply-To: <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> References: <201209111220.q8BCKN4r026262@mail.acquirer.com> <504F3034.9040008@netability.ie> <363E3235-4E04-4501-989C-2FB216E57E5D@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <28E6EE70-5174-40EE-937A-CC33D12CDD39@kurtis.pp.se> On 12 sep 2012, at 18:40, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > My intent, which Emilio took every care to accommodate, was to minimize > the potential for confusion that seemed inevitable in case there was a > significant difference between the two documents. I acknowledge > responsibility for this decision, thank Emilio for his meticulous > support, and thank Bijal and Kurtis for their continued understanding. So just to clarify how the chairs sees this working out. We wanted the original version posted so we could track it and save some time. Due to a little misunderstanding and unclarity on my part the posting got delayed. Now at least we have a version posted, and we have both the previous discussions as well as some new comments. The authors have expressed that they are taking this feedback into account and will look at a new release. We will wait for further policy actions until we have a new version posted. Best regards, - kurtis - From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Sep 18 23:40:57 2012 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:40:57 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). Message-ID: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Dear all, For those that haven't seen the post by the RIPE NCC on the website ( https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-receives-communicat ion-from-united-against-nuclear-iran-uani ) If it wasn't written so seriously and someone would have told me this over a beer, I would actually have laughed and thought it was a joke. However as I read this not so funny letter from a former political diplomat, I probably missed the point when the RIPE GM meeting has become the location for political lobbyist to do their work and try to influence connectivity on the internet. I mean .. If the plan is to revoke all Iranian IP addresses, how would $Goverment get the next Stux malware updated to attack said plants. So, all jokes aside, what is the reply that is provided to the writer and if he would show up at the RIPE meeting, will he be provided any room to discuss the topic and will the request for a resolution be discussed during the GM meeting? Kind regards, Erik Bais -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Sep 19 03:22:04 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 02:22:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: On 18 Sep 2012, at 22:40, Erik Bais wrote: > So, all jokes aside, what is the reply that is provided to the > writer and if > he would show up at the RIPE meeting, will he be provided any room to > discuss the topic and will the request for a resolution be discussed > during > the GM meeting? This is why Axel, Nigel and Rob earn the big bucks. :-) I am sure they will be arranging a suitable response to Ambassador Wallace and this will involve discussion with the NCC's lawyers and the Dutch government. We should leave them to get on with it. Once there's anything significant to report, I'm sure we'll hear about it at RIPE65 and/or on the mailing lists. Ambassador Wallace is of course welcome to attend the RIPE meeting and request agenda time to discuss whatever takes his fancy, just like President Ahmadinejad or anybody else. If they ask Axel nicely, they can attend the GM as observers. I very much doubt Ambassador Wallace or President Ahmadinejad represents an NCC member (or would be a proxy for one) and be automatically entitled to attend the GM. UANI's resolution almost certainly can't be discussed at next week's GM. The NCC's Articles of Association (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-534 ) clearly state the requirements for a GM resolution. See Article 15.6 and 15.7. Resolutions have to be sent to the membership at least 2 weeks before the GM. They also need to have the support of 2% of the membership. It's not clear if UANI has lined up that support. Or if those members have submitted a resolution in time. If you're an LIR -- I'm not -- you would have been notified about that GM resolution by now. FWIW, there are so many things wrong with the Ambassador's letter, there's no point discussing it here. That discussion would be unhelpful and counter-productive too. Ambassador Wallace is no longer in office, so it's not clear if he's acting on behalf of the US government or what influence he has there. He would have left USG when President Obama was elected and the officials appointed by his predecessor were replaced. UANI seems to be a pressure group with powerful and influentual friends. Its boards have quite a few ex-heads of western intelligence services, Tony Blair's Downing Street Chief of Staff, etc. UANI's web site says it has been able to get multinational companies to stop doing business with Iran. So this situation is going to need very, very careful handling. IMO we should trust this to RIPE (NCC) management and their legal advisers. It's why they're there to represent us. We can also expect more of these layer 10 and up issues in the years ahead. Sign of the times I suppose. Hey it could be worse. Imagine ARIN's problems because of USG policy on Cuba. From mm at elabnet.de Wed Sep 19 03:50:25 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:50:25 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <505924E1.6080606@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I reply on list as I'm a little upset on this. This simply isn't the job of the world-wide-web to enforce political interests and it would be fully wrong to do that! And it's against the democracy, the Internet and what "freedom of speech" stands for! Because if one re-thinks very closely, thats whats terrorists are about: tear down our lives to fear, "over-control" and close to dictatorial systems. Do we want that? I say no. Now, I have to point out that I'm rather atheist, not christian, not muslim, nor jew (ok, rather christian but more due to my understanding of values I learned when I grew up) I'd *never* say that I agree with what the Mullahs (German, sorry found no translation: "Turban-Flatterm?nner") actually do BUT: This is nothing to be solved by us at all on the net! The Internet is open - and thats a very, very good thing at first, second and third. The regime there already does massive intrusion as we know (we delivered the technology to enable that, CA's all over the world are willing to sell certificates for *.* etc .- thats something better to fight against! cause thats very ridiciculous! RIPE-Community should be a really trusted CA i.e.) But to block them by IP would also mean to block any other opinion there.. I'm not very political but I'm sure there *are* other opinions also there. The more interesting question would be: who sent that? I'd guess on someone that wants to drive a war forward, when we read that, we should be aware of this matter.. I wouldnt under-estimate intelligence services, they did much greater Jobs in the past (Stuxnet) than blending the public like this.. Please: Dont get me wrong! but in ncc-services-wg we're also not in the club of "USA/Israel just wants to bomb out Iran and tries to find better reasons" ;) So basically this is fully OT - and the request from "UANI" even worse OT. Finally, I wonder why this fax hasnt just been sent to the bin without any notice.. Though, it's interesting to find out who stands behind that ;) Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBZJOEACgkQaWRHV2kMuAI8ygCcCgb/vaayWaKsoQJkE5tjSvZv tZYAn3mn7yF97m4UxNjUPlMc0+W3dLtb =APGq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Sep 19 09:25:01 2012 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:25:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <5059734D.4030305@schiefner.de> Hi Jim, all - On 19.09.2012 03:22, Jim Reid wrote: > [...] > > IMO we should trust this to RIPE (NCC) management and their legal > advisers. It's why they're there to represent us. I wholeheartly agree with this last paragraph and everything before it. Best, Carsten From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Sep 19 09:31:04 2012 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:31:04 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <505924E1.6080606@elabnet.de> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <505924E1.6080606@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <505974B8.6070002@schiefner.de> Michael, could we *PLEASE* refrain from using taunting descriptions for (groups of) people like the following: On 19.09.2012 03:50, Michael Markstaller wrote: > I'd *never* say that I agree with what the Mullahs (German, sorry > found no translation: "Turban-Flatterm?nner") actually do BUT: and strictly stick to facts and matters at hand instead?! Thank you, Carsten From alexb at ripe.net Wed Sep 19 10:56:09 2012 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:56:09 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New Resource Certification (RPKI) Management Interface Message-ID: <0B7E578B-73DE-4475-B960-CD170C94CE4C@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is continuing to improve and enhance the Resource Certification (RPKI) service that was launched in 2011 in order to make our registry more robust and BGP routing more secure. As announced at RIPE 64, the main focus of our activities has been on security, resilience and operator autonomy. Most of this work has been at the back end, so users will not have noticed any visible changes in the system for quite some time. Today, I am proud to announce a major improvement to the service that can be experienced by all members: the new Resource Certification Management Interface. The standard for usability was set by the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator toolset, and the bar has been raised by this new LIR Portal interface to manage Route Origin Authorisations (ROAs). It sets a new standard in the services we offer to our members and the community, with an extreme focus on quality and user friendliness. The main driver for this has been the community wish for a high quality RPKI dataset, so operators can base reliable routing decisions on it. In order to achieve this, we have added some remarkable features: - There is a product tour to guide new users through the basic concepts of RPKI and BGP Origin Validation - The system can suggest ROAs to users, helping them to authorise legitimate BGP announcements - We offer a fine-grained, highly configurable alerting system, notifying users of BGP hijacks and configuration errors If you are a RIPE NCC member, please try out the new Resource Certification (RPKI) system and authorise all legitimate BGP announcements with your address space by creating ROAs for them. It is available at: https://certification.ripe.net (requires LIR Portal login) To use BGP Origin Validation in your routing workflow, please use the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator toolset. It is compatible with all Cisco and Juniper platforms that offer support for BGP Origin Validation. Learn more at: https://ripe.net/certification/validation Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at netability.ie Wed Sep 19 11:42:32 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:42:32 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> On 18/09/2012 22:40, Erik Bais wrote: > So, all jokes aside, what is the reply that is provided to the writer and > if he would show up at the RIPE meeting, will he be provided any room to > discuss the topic and will the request for a resolution be discussed during > the GM meeting? The only relevant issue here is whether the RIPE NCC is in compliance with Dutch / EU law regarding the sanctions. No doubt the NCC's lawyers and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to provide a conclusive answer, and that we will be informed shortly. Regarding a presence at either the RIPE meeting or the GM, I see no particular reason to treat UANI differently to anyone else. I.e. as Jim noted, they are welcome to register, pay for and attend the RIPE meeting and even request observer status at the GM on the discretion of the board. But I'm not sure on what basis they are demanding that the GM hold an emergency debate on something which is a matter of legal procedure, when it is currently unclear what the RIPE NCC's legal obligations are on the matter. Nick From nigel at titley.com Wed Sep 19 11:35:27 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:35:27 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <505991DF.4060402@titley.com> On 18/09/2012 22:40, Erik Bais wrote: > > So, all jokes aside, what is the reply that is provided to the writer > and if he would show up at the RIPE meeting, will he be provided any > room to discuss the topic and will the request for a resolution be > discussed during the GM meeting? > Lawyers have been consulted. The reply was "Thanks for your fax". As Jim has pointed out there can't be a GM resolution raised as we are too late to change the agenda (Articles of Association rules). And unless Ambassador Wallace is associated with a RIPE NCC member he needs to ask me (not Axel) for permission to attend, as an observer (which means he can't speak). I would, of course, give the request due consideration. I expect there will be more on this next week at the NCC Service WG. All the best Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Sep 19 11:56:44 2012 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:56:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> Message-ID: <505996DC.2060504@schiefner.de> Hi Nick, all - On 19.09.2012 11:42, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 18/09/2012 22:40, Erik Bais wrote: >> So, all jokes aside, what is the reply that is provided to the writer and >> if he would show up at the RIPE meeting, will he be provided any room to >> discuss the topic and will the request for a resolution be discussed during >> the GM meeting? > > The only relevant issue here is whether the RIPE NCC is in compliance with > Dutch / EU law regarding the sanctions. No doubt the NCC's lawyers and the > Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to provide a conclusive > answer, and that we will be informed shortly. > > Regarding a presence at either the RIPE meeting or the GM, I see no > particular reason to treat UANI differently to anyone else. I.e. as Jim > noted, they are welcome to register, pay for and attend the RIPE meeting > and even request observer status at the GM on the discretion of the board. > But I'm not sure on what basis they are demanding that the GM hold an > emergency debate on something which is a matter of legal procedure, when it > is currently unclear what the RIPE NCC's legal obligations are on the matter. once more: I fully agree with this approach. Pressing people to do something always needs two parties: those that press and those that allow to be pressed. The RIPE NCC and its mmbers being the latter should stay firm here. Besides this, I find it remarkable that despite all these efforts and background research they seem to have put in this, they obviously still are under the assumption that the RIPE NCC has anything to do with - or at least influence on - TLDs in general, ccTLDs in particular and/or specifically the .ir ccTLD. Best, Carsten From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Sep 19 12:02:14 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:02:14 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20120919100214.GD31709@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:42:32AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >Regarding a presence at either the RIPE meeting or the GM, I see no >particular reason to treat UANI differently to anyone else. I.e. as Jim >noted, they are welcome to register, pay for and attend the RIPE meeting >and even request observer status at the GM on the discretion of the board. > But I'm not sure on what basis they are demanding that the GM hold an >emergency debate on something which is a matter of legal procedure, when it >is currently unclear what the RIPE NCC's legal obligations are on the matter. The NCC PR states that they've been in contact with the Dutch trade ministry and are in compliance with regs so far. However, depending on how things play out on the geopolitical stage, this may not always be the case. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear a talk some time on the subject from RIRs who've already had to deal with these situations? Maybe ARIN (Cuba) or APNIC (North Korea)? rgds, Sascha Luck From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Sep 19 11:59:52 2012 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:59:52 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <20120919100214.GD31709@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> <20120919100214.GD31709@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <50599798.4070202@schiefner.de> On 19.09.2012 12:02, Sascha Luck wrote: > The NCC PR states that they've been in contact with the Dutch trade > ministry and are in compliance with regs so far. However, depending on > how things play out on the geopolitical stage, > this may not always be the case. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear a > talk some time on the subject from RIRs who've already had to deal with > these situations? Maybe ARIN (Cuba) or APNIC (North Korea)? +1 I'd be very interested to hear some more details here from the ARIN and/or APNIC colleagues. Thanks and best, Carsten From gert at space.net Wed Sep 19 12:07:26 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:07:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <50599798.4070202@schiefner.de> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <50599388.3070906@netability.ie> <20120919100214.GD31709@cilantro.c4inet.net> <50599798.4070202@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <20120919100726.GL13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:59:52AM +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > I'd be very interested to hear some more details here from the ARIN > and/or APNIC colleagues. +1 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 kurt_kayser at gmx.de Wed Sep 19 14:47:15 2012 From: kurt_kayser at gmx.de (Kurt Kayser) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:47:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> Hi Erik, et al, Aside from the initial reactions, I believe this discussion should happen very soon. My personal view on Internet-resources is about equal to other resources such as metal or stone. You can build bridges from steel or swords to create weapons. If we let IP/The Internet in general be mistaken as a aid for creating weapons - or even consider it a weapon (which is not too far away, if we consider the current level of cyber warfare) then WE as human race are in deep trouble. The Internet should help to overcome language and distance barriers for communications, which is an essential desire. We can and should not let organizations, be it the UANI, goverments or military organization let dictate WHAT and HOW to use this infrastructure. IMHO it is the most demographic tool we have today in order to communicate quick and effective - with minor censorship. Even China is learning that their firewall maybe getting WAY too big too handle soon. Simply filtering "Ferrari" in search-terms simply doesn't cut it in order to betray their own people. I believe it's time to get up and find supporters to continue the free Internet as we have known it for almost 30 years now. Best regards, Kurt Kayser From mm at elabnet.de Wed Sep 19 17:16:04 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:04 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> Message-ID: <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19.09.2012 09:31, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Michael, > > could we *PLEASE* refrain from using taunting descriptions for > (groups of) people like the following: Agreed, yes, sorry for that. But the subject drove me to such words.. The content of this letter that ridiculous, that it's very hard to find the right words. (I still think it should have just put into the bin, without even thinking or talking about in the free part of the world) I still havent understood, why the author of this braindead letter is quoted as "ambassador" (ambassador for whom or what??) If one founds "United against wasting IPv4" now and calls himself ambassador, would it be taken serious? On 19.09.2012 14:47, Kurt Kayser wrote: > .. I believe it's time to get up and find supporters to continue > the free Internet as we have known it for almost 30 years now. +1 If a court decides that (any!) RIR/LIR has to block a country based on trading-laws (or smthg. like that) the Internet begins to fail. This won't happen, I'm pretty sure about that! (and its also still useless as criminal minds will find a "workaround") But where if not here, could this be clearly said and discussed.. Michael PS/BTW, back on topic of this ML: this popped up during this discussion in my brain, thinking about the real backgrounds: Anyone who thinks it's useful to talk about (long-term!) Root-CA services by (RIR)/RIPE? Instead of commercial instances that just print money and sell them in case without anything (just price) to dictators like *.google.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBZ4bQACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKBQwCg6b2nRVvOl5OgMte4Ii/SjzBc cm8AoIObWhIOtnwbiMkry3GAdI7DgfFP =qMLo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Sep 19 17:37:30 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:37:30 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <5059E6BA.60005@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Michael Markstaller wrote: > On 19.09.2012 09:31, Carsten Schiefner wrote: [...] > If a court decides that (any!) RIR/LIR has to block a country based on > trading-laws (or smthg. like that) the Internet begins to fail. > This won't happen, I'm pretty sure about that! You may be in for a nasty surprise :-( Courts to not understand the 'net, neither technically, nor socially or otherwise. > (and its also still useless as criminal minds will find a "workaround") That's a non-issue amongst lawyers and courts, unfortunately. Sigh... > But where if not here, could this be clearly said and discussed.. > > Michael Wilfried From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Sep 19 17:49:00 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:49:00 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <5059E96C.40009@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Michael Markstaller wrote: [...] > Anyone who thinks it's useful to talk about (long-term!) Root-CA > services by (RIR)/RIPE? Caveat: very personal and non-PC point of view! I consider the whole concept of tree-structured CAs an architectural failure. With that in mind, I do not want to see the NCC drawn into that swamp. It just increases the NCC's attack surface. The NCC will be forced to deal with quite a big number of these fundamental issues eventually, within the context of RPKI, though... > Instead of commercial instances that just print money and sell them in > case without anything (just price) to dictators like *.google.com Any attempt to manage trust as a commodity and to sell it in a competitive market, where the majority of customers and consumers (with a broad definition of both) do not understand the technology and the risks - is doomed to fail. Unfortunately, I do not have a workable, scalable alternative solution to propose :-( Wilfried. From mm at elabnet.de Wed Sep 19 18:21:28 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:21:28 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <5059E96C.40009@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> <5059E96C.40009@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <5059F108.4010802@elabnet.de> On 19.09.2012 17:49, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > Michael Markstaller wrote: > [...] >> Anyone who thinks it's useful to talk about (long-term!) Root-CA >> services by (RIR)/RIPE? > > Caveat: very personal and non-PC point of view! > > I consider the whole concept of tree-structured CAs an architectural failure. > With that in mind, I do not want to see the NCC drawn into that swamp. It > just increases the NCC's attack surface. > Well, let me draw a little picture of what I'd think of: Currently: - most "trusted" root-CAs in browsers are out of any control, thats bad, big failure (as we can see when they sell certificates to dictators for "monitoring"-purposes) - anyone can get a cert for gurgleme.com ;) I dont trust any of them.. And no user will ever verify fingerprints etc.. Future(?): - After many years, only really trusted, community-controlled (in terms of what they are allowed to do) are accepted anymore, at least in sensitive environments. - Certificates are only given out based on a (human!) decision based on policies, so if he/she is within the net, on the provider (LIR) speaking through etc.. Surely: this needs human resources but when looking at the prices of Verisign etc - these could be easily paid.. >> Instead of commercial instances that just print money and sell them in >> case without anything (just price) to dictators like *.google.com > > Any attempt to manage trust as a commodity and to sell it in a competitive > market, where the majority of customers and consumers (with a broad definition > of both) do not understand the technology and the risks - is doomed to fail. Isn't it somehow our job to think about how to protect the consumer from being a lemming of the industry ? ;) best regards Michael From roland at perry.co.uk Thu Sep 20 08:02:00 2012 From: roland at perry.co.uk (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:02:00 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> Message-ID: In message <5059E1B4.6030507 at elabnet.de>, at 17:16:04 on Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Michael Markstaller remarked: >I still havent understood, why the author of this braindead letter is >quoted as "ambassador" (ambassador for whom or what??) In the USA many official titles are entitled to be kept after a person has left office (in this case formerly the US Ambassador to the UN). This includes persons appointed by the President or the US Senate, or elected to public office. Ambassador Wallace was appointed by President George Bush, who also retains his title despite leaving office. In the UK this style is less common, but can include retired army Colonels and Professors (and members of the Privy Council are "The Rt Hon" for life). Perhaps there is some etiquette like that in Germany also? -- Roland Perry From alexb at ripe.net Thu Sep 20 10:06:44 2012 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:06:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] LIR Portal APIs to simplify your IP Address Management Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Over the last couple of months we have been working on the IP Analyser in the LIR Portal. The application is currently still in beta, but it is proving to be very popular with over 20,000 page views since the launch. This week we have released an update to the API for the IP Analyser, in order to help you simply your local IP address management. It means the following is now available: The My Resources API: Access all registry information about your resources in JSON or XML format, including ASNs, IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, Assignment Window history, PI assignments, Legacy space, etc. The IP Analyser API: Access all information about your IPv4 assignments, available free space and invalid assignments that require your attention, in JSON or plain text format. The plain text output uses the same formatting as the asused tool, that many of you are familiar with. It also means that you no longer need to contact NCC Registration Services if you would like to have an overview of your invalid assignments. Before we make this a production service, we would really appreciate your input on this functionality; especially on the new JSON format for the IP Analyser. If there is anything missing or you would like to have changed, we can take it along in our planning and roadmap. There is also an opportunity to provide feedback in the NCC Services WG session at RIPE 65. Over the next couple of weeks, we will be expanding the IP Analyser UI, and add more IPv6 information. You can find the documentation for these, and all other APIs we offer at http://ripe.net/developers Looking forward to your feedback! Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Thu Sep 20 15:08:50 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:08:50 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC Tools and Technical Talks at RIPE 65 In-Reply-To: <505B1522.9000702@ripe.net> References: <505B1522.9000702@ripe.net> Message-ID: <505B1562.4020503@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We have published a schedule on RIPE Labs that lists various RIPE NCC presentations during the upcoming RIPE 65 meeting: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/becha/live-at-ripe65 Note that this is not a complete schedule and does not show all the regular RIPE Meeting reports. We have published this to make it easier for you to identify presentations and BoFs related to specific tools and technical projects provided by the RIPE NCC. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mm at elabnet.de Fri Sep 21 05:12:51 2012 From: mm at elabnet.de (Michael Markstaller) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:12:51 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Questions about the fax the RIPE NCC received from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). In-Reply-To: References: <000401cd95e6$49e7b0f0$ddb712d0$@a2b-internet.com> <20120919124715.35320@gmx.net> <5059E1B4.6030507@elabnet.de> Message-ID: <505BDB33.1040901@elabnet.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20.09.2012 08:02, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <5059E1B4.6030507 at elabnet.de>, at 17:16:04 on Wed, 19 > Sep 2012, Michael Markstaller remarked: > >> I still havent understood, why the author of this braindead >> letter is quoted as "ambassador" (ambassador for whom or what??) > > In the USA many official titles are entitled to be kept after a > person has left office (in this case formerly the US Ambassador to > the UN). This includes persons appointed by the President or the US > Senate, or elected to public office. Thanks, didn't knew that (partially but not fully) I found it confusing, its like underwriting "CEO" for smthg I'm not just because I was once somewhere else.. The remainder should be up to the lawyers, lets see.. best reagrds Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBb2zMACgkQaWRHV2kMuAIpsACgod8n+EgPCBSyJo3cohEIF/83 lzwAni2FrvbFUpiwSK4F7lQUAw9uIxvk =idri -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From he at uninett.no Fri Sep 21 09:52:45 2012 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:52:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders In-Reply-To: <20120830.120012.241450609.he@uninett.no> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120829190532.05363748@efes.iucc.ac.il> <503E5283.7080308@netability.ie> <20120830.120012.241450609.he@uninett.no> Message-ID: <20120921.095245.238967603.he@uninett.no> Hi, earlier I muttered something about terminology in conjunction with what we're actually discussing about the legacy resource holders. Daniel wrote: So what we have to decide as a community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, first, as far as I've gathered, the RIPE Internet Number registry is *not* the same as the RIPE database. We even have a fine informational document, ripe-508, with the title "The RIPE registry". Is "The RIPE registry" and "the RIPE Internet Number registry" one and the same? Secondly, ripe-508 speaks about the data in "The RIPE registry", and that document also talks about the legacy resources the RIPE NCC has the record-keeping responsibility for, and mentions that this includes Internet number resources which were assigned before the RIPE NCC was (fully) established, and that these resources are already a part of "The RIPE registry", tagged as "legacy". A side question here would be whether a "complete" public view of "The RIPE registry" is available in any manner? The delegated-ripencc- latest file in ftp.ripe.net:/pub/stats/ripencc/ does not list any resources marked "legacy". Unless someone is intentionally playing with words with the intent to confuse, and "the RIPE registry" is separate and different from "The RIPE Internet Number registry" (I doubt that's the case), this makes me a little uncertain about what *exactly* it is we are discussing when it comes to the handling of the legacy resources, because according to ripe-508 the legacy resources used in the RIPE NCC service region should already be registered in "The RIPE registry". Can someone in authority please make an attempt to clear up this particular source of confusion? Best regards, - H?vard From comms+reply at ripe.net Mon Sep 24 16:54:27 2012 From: comms+reply at ripe.net (Sandra Bras) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:54:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Meet Debbie, the RIPE Database Robot! References: <3C0295F1-E065-488A-8891-F159F10ED911@ripe.net> Message-ID: [Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, RIPE NCC E-Learning is pleased to introduce you to Debbie, the RIPE Database Robot. Debbie is your guide through a new series of e-learning videos designed to help you get the most out of the RIPE Database: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/ripe-database The RIPE Database e-learning collection has also expanded with the addition of three new videos: - Create More Specifics (Hierarchical Authorisation) - Create IPv4 Assignments - Create IPv6 Assignments There are now eight brief video tutorials (most around three minutes duration) giving step-by-step instructions for users to perform a range of different operations in the RIPE Database. If you have any comments or questions, please send an email to . Happy learning! Sandra Bras Trainer / E-Learning Project Manager, RIPE NCC From jens.pickardt at teliko.de Tue Sep 25 09:47:55 2012 From: jens.pickardt at teliko.de (Jens Pickardt) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:47:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NOAUTO: IPv4 Exhaustion: PI-IP-addresses for end-user Message-ID: <3B566098029B1D4C8449D96287E12BE7010B46CAD78D@teliko-exchsrv.teliko.de> Hello, the allocation of the last /8 was started. Is it right, that end-user don?t get PI-IPv4-addresses ? Concerns this only new PI-IP-end-users or also end-users, who want to extend the existing PI-IP-address-space ? This would be an important information for our customers. Thanks and regards Jens Pickardt _____________________________________________________________________________ teliko GmbH Telekommunikationsgesellschaft In den Fritzenst?cker 17 D-65549 Limburg a. d. Lahn Fon +49 6431 73070-40 Fax +49 6431 73070-14 EMail: jens.pickardt at teliko.de Internet: www.teliko.de ___________________________________________________________________________________ Besuchen Sie uns in der teliko-Lounge auf der Wincor World 2012! Fachmesse & Forum f?r Banken und Handel - Vom 16.- 18. Oktober 2012 in Rheda-Wiedenbr?ck ___________________________________________________________________________________ Fragen zu unseren Dienstleistungen? Kostenlose Hotline: 08000-teliko, w?hlen Sie dazu 08000 835456. Besuchen Sie unsere Webseite <> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Frank Berkessel, Dipl.-Ing. Sascha Holste, Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Friederitzi; Dipl.-Ing. Klaus-Peter Altmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Werner Dommermuth Gerichtsstand: AG Limburg, HRB 1863 ********************************************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informa- tionen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Empfaenger sind oder diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail oder des Inhalts dieser Mail sind nicht gestattet. Ueber das Internet versandte E-Mails koennen leicht verfaelscht oder unter fremdem Namen erstellt werden. Zu Ihrer und unserer Sicherheit schlie?en wir daher die rechtliche Verbindlichkeit der vorstehenden Erklaerungen aus. DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Due to the fact that e-mails are prone to manipulation and can be misleading as to the identity of the sender, the foregoing statements and comments shall have no legal validity. This is for your own protection as well as ours. ********************************************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Sep 25 10:12:43 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:12:43 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NOAUTO: IPv4 Exhaustion: PI-IP-addresses for end-user In-Reply-To: <3B566098029B1D4C8449D96287E12BE7010B46CAD78D@teliko-exchsrv.teliko.de> References: <3B566098029B1D4C8449D96287E12BE7010B46CAD78D@teliko-exchsrv.teliko.de> Message-ID: <20120925081243.GF13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:47:55AM +0200, Jens Pickardt wrote: > the allocation of the last /8 was started. > Is it right, that end-user don?t get PI-IPv4-addresses ? Yes. > Concerns this only new PI-IP-end-users or also end-users, who want to extend the existing PI-IP-address-space ? > > This would be an important information for our customers. This affects all users in the RIPE region. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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 nick at netability.ie Tue Sep 25 10:18:25 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:18:25 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NOAUTO: IPv4 Exhaustion: PI-IP-addresses for end-user In-Reply-To: <3B566098029B1D4C8449D96287E12BE7010B46CAD78D@teliko-exchsrv.teliko.de> References: <3B566098029B1D4C8449D96287E12BE7010B46CAD78D@teliko-exchsrv.teliko.de> Message-ID: <506168D1.3070003@netability.ie> On 25/09/2012 09:47, Jens Pickardt wrote: > the allocation of the last /8 was started. > > Is it right, that end-user don?t get PI-IPv4-addresses ? > > Concerns this only new PI-IP-end-users or also end-users, who want to > extend the existing PI-IP-address-space ? Jens, There is an open policy proposal concerning PI assignments from the remaining IP address space (which includes the "last /8"): http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 This is currently being discussed on the Address Policy working group mailing list, and I will be giving a presentation about the proposal at the ripe65 APWG session next thursday. Nick From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 28 10:04:07 2012 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:04:07 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Progress on drafting version 2 of policy proposal 2012-07 (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) Message-ID: <84388D5F-6E2B-49C7-AFC2-5294ACC188CB@ucd.ie> After a couple of homework meetings during RIPE 65, Sander Steffann now has the pen and a list of elements to be included in version 2 of policy proposal 2012-07. Sander hopes to have a draft ready for review next week. A first review will take place on the ERX-HOLDERS list, so that what is released in due course through the policy development process and on the NCC Services WG list will have had buy-in from the concerned legacy resource holders in advance. I will check with the co-chairs of the NCC Services WG and with the RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to ensure that no surprises occur around the release of version 2 through the PDP and to the WG. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly