- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]
by Peter Koch 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

Dear DNS WG, people on this list might be interested in one aspect of the proposed policy <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01>, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-March/008638.…>, when it comes to (sub-)allocations smaller than /24. Note that BCP10/RFC 2317 is not necessarily the or the only solution to the problem. Also, in the interest of keeping the policy discussion focused, we might want to strictly focus on the reverse mapping on this list and make sure some "sense of the room" as well as all other aspects get discussed on address-policy. -Peter (DNS WG co-chair) ----- Forwarded message from Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> ----- From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> To: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de>, Rob Evans <rhe(a)nosc.ja.net> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:34:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5333CABF.1070609(a)schiefner.de> * Carsten Schiefner > No, not really. I feel this being only loosely coupled at best. My > proposal enables the transfer of allocations of *all* sizes and the > conversion of PI assignments of *all* sizes into allocations. > > Whether sub-allocations can be made from *all* these (new) > allocations or "just" from those being at least a /24 appears as a > separate question to me. Even more so, as the the sub-allocation > mechanism has been applied or used very rarely only so far. > > And having the "one thing at a time" principle in mind: if this > impossibility is of concern to the community, then this should maybe > be handled by a separate policy (modification) proposal. Hi Carsten, I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4» to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one specific for sub-allocations. Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317, and if we also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made»). So I'd ask you to consider removing that paragraph as well before going to review phase. Note that since we're still in the discussion phase, doing so doesn't have to slow down the progress of the proposal, you can go straight to review with updated proposal (modifications at a later stage are much more cumbersome). Just my €.02...your proposal, your call. ;) Tore ----- End forwarded message -----

4 4

DNSMON beta update
by Chris Amin 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Hi all, During the alpha phase of the new DNSMON, we sent periodic updates to the alpha testers about new features and bug fixes. For the public beta, we intend to continue in the same vein by announcing on this list, although hopefully we won't spam you too much now that the product is more mature. Since officially going "public" last week, we have made many changes to the widget. In particular gestures and feedback are drastically improved. Specifics include: * a new feature to group servers/anchors has been introduced. Now all the servers are grouped by hostname and all the anchors by country; * improved the time navigation and perception; Moving in time now provides real time feedback for a faster interaction; * the auto update function has been made more robust; * included instructions on how to include DNSMON in your own page (see "Embedding DNSMON in other pages" in the "About DNSMON menu"). URL reminder, in case you need one: https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/ Regards, Chris Amin RIPE NCC

1 0

Relative response time graph
by Ben Choy 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

Hi all, Since this is beta testing I assume this list is where to report possible bug. Looking at Relative response time graph, the limit time check doesn't seems to work, the lower limit is ok, but the high limit doesn't show the correct colour. [hkirc] Benjamin Choy Project Manager (System & Network) Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Limited (HKIRC) http://www.hkirc.hk<http://www.hkirc.hk/> http://互聯網註冊.香港<http://互聯網註冊.香港/> Hong Kong Domain Name Registration Company Limited (HKDNR) http://www.hkdnr.hk<http://www.hkdnr.hk/> http://域名註冊.香港<http://域名註.香港/> Tel: +852 2319 1313 / Fax: +852 2319 2626 / Direct: +852 2319 3819 / Email: ben.choy(a)hkirc.hk [cid:image002.png@01CEAE2D.C3DA7B80]<http://www.hkirc.hk/> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail entirely. You must not retain, copy, distribute or use this e-mail for any other purpose not intended by this email or disclose any of its content to others. The recipient should check the email and attachment for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT - think before printing!

1 0

Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org
by Anurag Bhatia 17 Mar '14

17 Mar '14

Hello everyone! It seems like http://www.root-servers.org/index.html has been updated after quite sometime. Seems like data about local Vs global for many of root servers nodes is incorrect. E.g for Netnod i root all nodes are marked as Global nodes. As far as I understand it means that routes announced by these nodes are announced to transit links as well to make routes visible globally. Likely that is not case here right? Same seems with L root and few others. Do we have webmaster of the project on mailing list? Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2

8 9

Call for contributions: DNS-WG at RIPE68
by Peter Koch 08 Mar '14

08 Mar '14

Dear DNS WG, the RIPE meeting in Warsaw is 10 weeks away and we would like to compile a preliminary agenda soon. The DNS WG has been assigned the usual two slots, this time on Wed, 14 May, around lunch. That's 1100-1230 and 1400-1530 in proper figures. Please submit suggestions for presentations to <dns-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net>. There's a lot going on in the DNS world and whatever you or your colleagues have done, please consider sharing. We are definitely interested in operational matters, as well, so do not hesitate to submit the "tiny idea" that's explained in five to ten minutes. We will echange information with the OARC program committee for their (our) workshop taking place the weekend before RIPE68 to mitigate collisions (no pun). -Peter (for the wg co-chairs)

1 0

the seven people who hold the keys to worldwide internet security
by Jim Reid 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

Sigh. Just sigh. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/28/seven-people-keys-worldwi… Well at least the article has a photo of Rick Lamb in a suit and tie, so it's not all bad... :-)

10 20

Re: [dns-wg] the seven people who hold the keys to worldwide internet security
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 03 Mar '14

03 Mar '14

Jim Yeah - I'm shocked that the expenses aren't covered already. I assumed that they were Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 2:59 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: RIPE DNS WG Subject: Re: [dns-wg] the seven people who hold the keys to worldwide internet security On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:52, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Doesn't ICANN / IANA cover their expenses?? No. The TCRs must pay their own way or get their employer to pick up the travel costs. IMO this should change.

2 1

Re: [dns-wg] the seven people who hold the keys to worldwide internet security
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 03 Mar '14

03 Mar '14

What? Doesn't ICANN / IANA cover their expenses?? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: dns-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 2:40 PM To: dns-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [dns-wg] the seven people who hold the keys to worldwide internet security * Kim Davies wrote: > I actually think the story does a great job of making a deathly boring procedure interesting and accessible. It's not only boring. It's expensive, too. The participants have to pay for the fame.

3 2

FYI, new ICANN SSAC advisories
by Jaap Akkerhuis 26 Feb '14

26 Feb '14

Dear All, Please note that two new SSAC Reports have been released in the last few days. They are: SAC064: SSAC Advisory on DNS "Search List" Processing and SAC065: SSAC Advisory on DDOS Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure Both reports can be downloaded from <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents>. jaap

1 0

Call for Presentations: RIPE 68, 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland
by Benno Overeinder 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 68 will take place from 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary session presentations, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 68. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: * IPv6 deployment * Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations * Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses * Data centre technologies * Network and DNS operations * Internet governance and regulatory practices * Network and routing security * Content delivery * Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. The RIPE PC accepts proposals for different presentation formats, including plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. See the full descriptions of these formats at https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. In addition to presentations selected in advance for the plenary, the RIPE PC also offers several time slots for "lightning talks", which are selected immediately before or during the conference. The following general requirements apply: - Proposals for plenary session presentations, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 2 March 2014, using the meeting submission system at https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/guidelines/. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered on a space-available basis. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted just days before the RIPE Meeting starts or even during the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talk slots will be announced in short notice---in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the relevant session. - Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. See more information on time slot allocations per presentation format at https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. - Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panelists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most, if not all, presenters/panelists will be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0