Dear DB-WG folks, Chairpersons, Meeting! Here is the 3rd draft of an agenda for the DB-WG next week at RIPE52 in Istanbul. New since V2: item G. For time slot allocation please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/meeting-plan.html Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. DB Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~15 min] C. ENUM delegations (input from DNS-WG, RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~10 min] . PDP proposal E. "48.6 RIPE NCC" (return irt: by default) revisited (RIPE NCC) [~15 min] F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG) [~10 min] . Brief report on SIDR BoF, IETF65 (tbc, N.N.) G. DB issues when recycling AS Numbers (Leo V., RIPE NCC) [~15 min] H. Client software to use the RoutingRegistry (Rüdiger V., T-Com) [~10 min] . What tools are needed/used to feed router configurations from the databases? Status and perspectives of available software Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Z. AOB
I'm not sure whether this is within scope, or better mentioned in the NCC-services WG, or just simply discussed over coffee with an NCC person. A colleague in a sister organization here in Ireland has recently had an experience which leads me to think that it would be useful to have some consistency checking between address assignments and the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA domains, at least at the /16 level. See you all next week. /Niall
hi Niall, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Option 3
Z. AOB
I'm not sure whether this is within scope, or Option 1 better mentioned in the NCC-services WG, Option 2 or just simply discussed over coffee with an NCC person.
A colleague in a sister organization here in Ireland has recently had an experience which leads me to think that it would be useful to have some consistency checking between address assignments and the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA domains, at least at the /16 level.
See you all next week.
/Niall
Let us try to do (2) first, then maybe (1), both before Friday morning. Then we can still do (3) and try to bring it up in DB under AOB. Wilfried.
On 20 Apr 2006, at 06:09, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: Option 3
Z. AOB I'm not sure whether this is within scope, or Option 1 better mentioned in the NCC-services WG, Option 2 or just simply discussed over coffee with an NCC person.
A colleague in a sister organization here in Ireland has recently had an experience which leads me to think that it would be useful to have some consistency checking between address assignments and the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA domains, at least at the /16 level. See you all next week. /Niall Let us try to do (2) first, then maybe (1), both before Friday morning. Then we can still do (3) and try to bring it up in DB under AOB. Wilfried.
Thanks, Wilfried. That sounds like a plan. Operationally, RIPE NCC are already on the case (2). Timothy decided he should ask me about it earlier today. Good for him! I'll follow (2) up over coffee next week and see whether NCC feel they need WG input for this for their database consistency effort. Depending on the outcome, I may approach you or Kurtis to pursue (1) or (3). If there's no WG input needed, it may be worth mentioning that very fact under AOB in DB-WG on Friday morning, just before I rush off to the airport. CU soon. /Niall
Change of plan: see below. On 20 Apr 2006, at 20:43, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006, at 06:09, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:08, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: Option 3
Z. AOB I'm not sure whether this is within scope, or Option 1 better mentioned in the NCC-services WG, Option 2 or just simply discussed over coffee with an NCC person.
A colleague in a sister organization here in Ireland has recently had an experience which leads me to think that it would be useful to have some consistency checking between address assignments and the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA domains, at least at the /16 level. See you all next week. /Niall Let us try to do (2) first, then maybe (1), both before Friday morning. Then we can still do (3) and try to bring it up in DB under AOB. Wilfried.
Thanks, Wilfried. That sounds like a plan.
Conversations with a number of people here at RIPE 52, including some WG-co-chairs and some NCC experts, lead me to believe that this episode doesn't, on its own, indicate a sufficiently broad class of problems to warrant action. We should probably review the position if similar problems arise in the future. We don't need to take meeting time for this. /Niall
participants (2)
-
Niall O'Reilly -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet