- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Remark on 193.in-addr.arpa procedures
by Marten Terpstra 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

Folks, please have a read of the remark below. We sort of feel he Hakan has a point here. Did we miss something ? If not, then I will change the procedures to reflect this remark. -Marten ------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 12:57:15 +0200 From: hh(a)tip.net (Hakan Hansson) To: Marten.Terpstra(a)ripe.net cc: staff(a)tip.net Subject: Reachability of reverse servers. > Guidelines for the delegation > of zones in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain ... >4. All reverse servers for blocks must be reachable from the whole of >the Internet. In short, all servers must meet similar connectivity >requirements as top-level domain servers. ... >Procedures for the delegation of individual network zones ... >3. At least two reverse servers must be reachable from the whole of the >Internet. In short, these servers must meet similar connectivity >requirements as top-level domain servers. Marten, I've been thinking about the above guidelines. I fully agree with the statements in item 4 for block delegation, but I now realize I don't agree on item 3 for individual networks. I can't see why at least two reverse servers should be reachable from the whole of Internet. It must be enough that they are equally reachable as the actual network they are reverse serving for, or? If a network doesn't have NSFnet connectivity (that is what we are talking about, and should be mentioned in your document!), there is no need for anyone at NSF to lookup the reverse zone for that network either. These requriements don't apply to 192 networks, so why for 193? Regards, Hakan Hansson == Unisource Business Networks Sverige AB == Unidata IP Services * TIPnet NCC * Sweden == phone +46-31-7708072 * fax +46-31-114664 ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Re: Question about top-level domains?
by pietrak＠camk.edu.pl 02 Apr '93

02 Apr '93

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 13:17:21 +0200 From: mfendt(a)eso.org I have a question or better need a clarification about the report of the DNS working group (on the 14 Ripe meeting in Prag, 25-27.1.1993) One of the topics was the "propper" top-level domain of multinational organizations, like European Parliament. (case of the day) The suggestions were: .org: rejected because it is not a North American organization. My questions are the following: Is there anywhere mentioned that .org top-level domain is only for North America organisations? Or does this rejection have any other reasons? The solution choosen (again for the European Parliament) was using the country top level domain and have the name reserved in every (member?) country. This solution implies for me that any European Institution (which has a similiar status like the European Parliament) should follow that roule (or would it be acceptable that other institutions would achieve different solutions? I hope so,because I hate changing names :-)) Sorry to buzzz with my 0.02$ wirth, but the sulution selected for the European Parlament is a clear misshap. EC meens something above countries so there is no reason to declare it _under_ country codes. A clean way to do it would be to declare such organization in town/country where it has its HQ. For 'migrating HQ' organization may sellect a place. On the other hand; a name is just a name, who cares. -Rafal

1 0

Question about top-level domains?
by mfendt＠eso.org 02 Apr '93

02 Apr '93

Hello, I have a question or better need a clarification about the report of the DNS working group (on the 14 Ripe meeting in Prag, 25-27.1.1993) One of the topics was the "propper" top-level domain of multinational organizations, like European Parliament. (case of the day) The suggestions were: .org: rejected because it is not a North American organization. My questions are the following: Is there anywhere mentioned that .org top-level domain is only for North America organisations? Or does this rejection have any other reasons? The solution choosen (again for the European Parliament) was using the country top level domain and have the name reserved in every (member?) country. This solution implies for me that any European Institution (which has a similiar status like the European Parliament) should follow that roule (or would it be acceptable that other institutions would achieve different solutions? I hope so,because I hate changing names :-)) Michael Fendt ________________________________________________________________________________ Michael Fendt ESO (European Southern Observatory) Karl-Schwarzschildstr. 2 D-8046 Garching Germany Tel: +49 89 32006 441 Fax: +49 89 32023 62 email: mfendt(a)eso.org

1 0

193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
by Marten Terpstra 29 Mar '93

29 Mar '93

Folks, One last go. I think we folded in most of the comments from Blaso and others. We have included the procedures for single class C reverse zones, not via block zones. We are already doing our first trials with block delegations, all seems to work fine. Please let's get this document accepted and delegate these blocks. -Marten Guidelines for the delegation of zones in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain Marten Terpstra March 1993 V1.3 Introduction This document describes the procedures for the delegation of authority of zones in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. As of March 16th 1993 the RIPE NCC has been delegated the authority for the 193.in-addr.arpa domain from the root. Due to the fact that in the 193.x.y address space blocks of 256 class C network numbers are further delegated to local registries , the possibility exists to also delegate the zone for these blocks in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. This document describes some guidelines and procedures for this type of delegation and the delegation of reverse zones for individual class C networks in 193.x.y. A bit more explained With the assignment of class C network numbers following the CIDR (RFC 1338) model, in which large chunks of the address space are delegated to one region, and within that region blocks of class C network numbers are delegated to service providers and non-provider registries, some hierarchy in the address space is created, similar to the hierarchy in the domain name space. Due to this hierarchy the reverse Domain Name System mapping can also be delegated in a similar model as used for the normal Domain Name System. For instance, the RIPE NCC has been assigned the complete class C address space starting with 193. It is therefore possible to delegate the 193.in-addr.arpa domain completely to the RIPE NCC, instead of each and every reverse mapping in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain to be registered with the INTERNIC. This implies that all 193.in-addr.arpa resistrations will be done by the RIPE NCC. Even better, since service providers receive complete class C network blocks from the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC can delegate the reverse registrations for such complete blocks to these local registries. This implies that customers of these service providers no longer have to register their reverse domain mapping with the root, but the service provider have authority over that part of the reverse mapping. This decreases the workload on the INTERNIC and the RIPE NCC, and at the same time increase the service a provider can offer its customers by improve response times for reverse mapping changes . However there are some things that need to be examined a bit more closely to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. These issues are covered in the next section. Procedures for the delegation of direct subdomains of 193.in-addr.arpa 1. A secondary nameserver at ns.ripe.net is mandatory for all blocks of class C network numbers delegated in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. 2. Because of the increasing importance of correct reverse address mapping, for all delegated blocks a good set of secondaries must be defined. There should be at least 2 nameservers for all blocks delegated, excluding the RIPE NCC secondary. 3. The delegation of a class C block in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain can be requested by sending in a domain object for the RIPE database to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net> with all necessary contact and nameserver information. The RIPE NCC will then forward all current reverse zones inside this block to the registry, and after addition of these by the registry, the NCC will check the working of the reverse server. Once everything is setup properly, the NCC will delegate the block, and submit the database object for inclusion in the database. An example domain object can be found at the end of this document. 4. All reverse servers for blocks must be reachable from the whole of the Internet. In short, all servers must meet similar connectivity requirements as top-level domain servers. 5. Running the reverse server for class C blocks does not imply that one controls that part of the reverse domain, it only implies that one administers that part of the reverse domain. 6. Before adding individual nets, the administrator of a reverse domain must check wether all servers to be added for these nets are indeed setup properly. 7. There are some serious implications when a customer of a service provider that uses address space out of the service provider class C blocks, moves to another service provider. The previous service provider cannot force its ex-customer to change network addresses, and will have to continue to provide the appropriate delegation records for reverse mapping of these addresses, even though it they are no longer belonging to a customer. 8. The registration of the reverse zones for individual class C networks will usually be done by the registry administering the class C block this network has been assigned from. The registry will make the necessary changes to the zone, and update the network objects in the RIPE database for these networks, to reflect the correct "rev-srv" fields. In case the RIPE NCC receives a request for the reverse zone of an individual class C network out of a block that has been delegated, the request will be forwarded to the zone contact for this reverse block. Above procedures are defined to ensure the necessary high availability for the 193 reverse domains, and to minimize confusion. The NCC will ensure fast repsonse times for addition requests, and will in principle update the 193.in-addr.arpa domain at least once per working day. Example domain object to request a block delegation domain: 202.193.in-addr.arpa descr: Pan European Organisations class C block admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra zone-c: Marten Terpstra nserver: ns.eu.net nserver: sunic.sunet.se nserver: ns.ripe.net changed: marten(a)ripe.net 930319 source: RIPE Procedures for the delegation of individual network zones The registration of the reverse zones for individual class C networks will usually be done by the registry administering the class C block this network has been assigned from. In case the zone corresponding to the class C block has not been delegated, the RIPE NCC will automatically add the reverse nameserver as specified in the "rev-srv" attribute of the RIPE database object for this network, using the following procedures: 1. Because of the increasing importance of correct reverse address mapping, for all delegated networks a good set of secondaries must be defined. There should be at least two nameservers for all networks delegated. 2. The "rev-srv" field should ONLY contain one fully qualified domain name of a nameserver which is authoritative for the reverse zone for this network. 3. At least two reverse servers must be reachable from the whole of the Internet. In short, these servers must meet similar connectivity requirements as top-level domain servers. 4. The checking and addition of the reverse zones for single networks is completely automated at the RIPE NCC. Although we do our best to check the setup of the nameservers, these does not receive the same level of scrutiny as nameservers for blocks of class C network numbers. It is the responsibility of the network contacts to ensure proper operation. 5. Any problems regarding the reverse zones in 193.in-addr.arpa should be directed to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>. The NCC also suggests that similar procedures are set up for the delegation of reverse zones for individual class C networks from the registries to individual organisations.

4 5

Blocks in 193.in-addr.arpa domain document
by Marten Terpstra 24 Mar '93

24 Mar '93

Folks, Here's the updated document. I was planning on sending this out over the weekend, but forgot the modem cable ;-( Anyway, let's see if we can get agreement on this. Please note that the database specific things I do not want to spend too much on, this should be done at the RIPE meeting. A few more days to comment. Want to start delegating blocks end of the week, and during next week (although I will be at the IETF). -Marten Guidelines for the delegation of class C blocks in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain Marten Terpstra March 1993 V1.1 Introduction This document describes the procedures for the delegation of authority of zones in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. As of March 16th 1993 the RIPE NCC has been delegated the authority for the 193.in-addr.arpa domain from the root. Due to the fact that in the 193.x.y address space blocks of 256 class C network numbers are further delegated to local registries and national registries, the possibility exists to also delegate the zone for these blocks in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. This document describes some guidelines and procedures for this type of delegation. A bit more explained With the assignment of class C network numbers following the CIDR (RFC 1338) model, in which large chunks of the address space are delegated to one region, and within that region blocks of class C network numbers are delegated to service providers and national registries, some hierarchy in the address space is created, similar to the hierarchy in the domain name space. Due to this hierarchy the reverse Domain Name System mapping can also be delegated in a similar model as used for the normal Domain Name System. For instance, the RIPE NCC has been delegated the complete class C address space starting with 193. It is therefore possible to delegate the 193.in-addr.arpa domain completely to the RIPE NCC, in stead of each and every reverse mapping in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain to be registered with the INTERNIC. This implies that all 193.in-addr.arpa resistrations will be done by the RIPE NCC. Even better, since service providers receive complete class C network blocks from the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC can delegate the reverse registrations for such complete blocks to these local registries. This implies that customers of these service providers no longer have to register their reverse domain mapping with the root, but the service provider have authority over that part of the reverse mapping. This decreases the workload on the INTERNIC and the RIPE NCC, and at the same time increase the service a provider can offer its customers and response times for such additions. However there are some things that need to be examined a bit more closely to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. These issues are covered in the next section. Procedures 1. A secondary nameserver at ns.ripe.net is mandatory for all blocks of class C network numbers delegated in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. 2. Because of the increasing importance of correct reverse address mapping, for all delegated blocks a good set of secondaries must be defined. There should be at least 2 nameservers for all blocks delegated, excluding the RIPE NCC secondary. 3. The delegation of a class C block in the 193.in-addr.arpa domain can be requested by sending in a domain object for the RIPE database to <hostmaster(a)ripe.net> with all necessary contact and nameserver information. The RIPE NCC will then forward all current reverse zones inside this block to the registry, and after addition by the registry, the NCC will check the working of the reverse server. Once everything is setup properly, the NCC will delegate the block, and submit the database object for inclusion in the database. An example domain object can be at the end of this document. 4. All reverse servers for blocks must be reachable from the whole of the Internet. In short, all servers must meet similar connectivity requirements as top-level domain servers. 5. Running the reverse server for class C blocks does not imply that one controls that part of the reverse domain, it only implies that one administers that part of the reverse domain. 6. Before adding individual nets, the administrator of a reverse domain must check wether all servers to be added for these nets are indeed setup properly. 7. There are some serious implications when a customer of a service provider that uses address space out of the service provider class C blocks, moves to another service provider. The service provider cannot force its ex-customer to change network addresses, and will have to continue to provide the appropriate delegation records for reverse mapping of these addresses, even though it is no longer a customer of his. 8. The registration of the reverse zones for individual class C networks will usually be done by the registry administering the class C block this network has been assigned from. The registry will make the necessary changes to the zone, and update the network objects in the RIPE database for these networks, to reflect the correct "rev-srv" fields. In case the RIPE NCC receives a request for the reverse zone of an individual class C network out of a block that has been delegated, the request will be forwarded to the zone contact for this reverse block. Above procedures are defined to ensure the necessary high availability for the 193 reverse domains, and to minimize confusion. The NCC will ensure fast repsonse times for addition requests, and will in principle update the 193.in-addr.arpa domain at least once per working day. The NCC also suggests that similar procedures are set up for the delegation of reverse zones from the registries to individual organisations. Example domain object to request a block delegation domain: 202.193.in-addr.arpa descr: Pan European Organisations class C block admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra zone-c: Marten Terpstra nserver: ns.eu.net nserver: sunic.sunet.se nserver: ns.ripe.net changed: marten(a)ripe.net 930319 source: RIPE

3 3

Re: 193.in-addr.arpa block delegation procedures (draft)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet, +43 1 436111 355 19 Mar '93

19 Mar '93

| * > Another thing would be to create YADO (Yet Another Database Object) for | * > delegated blocks only, but I do not quite like that idea either. | |After some in-house discussion here we would like to following: | |- requests for delegation of a block in 193.in-addr.arpa should be done | by sending in the xxx.193.in-addr.arpa domain object to HOSTMASTER. |- we will then forward all entries that are already in the 193.in-addr.arpa | zone that belong to this block |- we will check that the existing entries are put into the delegated zone. |- we will delegate authority, and pass object to the database |- we will forward any request for reverse registration inside this block | to the zone-c for this reverse block. I like it. |The question about zone-c in the inetnum object and/or removing the rev-srv |field and replace it by an individual net.block.193.in-addr.arpa domain is |something for the database and dns working group. We really would like to get |the block delegation going. I think this is the essential thing. I propose to go ahead _doing_ it. Otherwise I'd even like to suggest a "back to square one" approach for the DB issues. I think we have to back up and figure out/define _what_ we want to organize for _which_ group of people. Generally my feeling is that we should try to - use _existing_ procedures wherever possible without "bending" them - invent new and _simple_ things if there is a need (the KISS principle) - keep the procedure for the "users" as simple as possible. Personally I prefer additional "small" objects that can be cross-checked automatically for consistency against "huge" multi-purpose objects with a lot of options and implied semantics. But that's probably a question of taste... |If noone has strong objections against the above procedure for block |delegation (not the net things), I will update the document and send out a |new version later today (probably tonight). My vote in favour. wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : E-m: Wilfried.Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at (Internet) Computer Center - ACOnet : Z00WWR01(a)AWIUNI11.BITNET (EARN) Vienna University : [ woeber(a)can.aconet.ada.at (X.400) ] Universitaetsstrasse 7 : [ S O P A C ] A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : Tel: +43 1 436111 355, Fax: +43 1 436111 170 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Use of RIPE DNS registration form
by Marten Terpstra 19 Mar '93

19 Mar '93

Havard Eidnes <Havard.Eidnes(a)runit.sintef.no> writes: * Hi, * * a question has recently arisen concerning the use of the RIPE form for * registering DNS domains in relation to registering names which only have MX * records associated with themselves. In this case, several of the mandatory * fields defined in the RIPE document ripe-49. In particular, we wonder what * we should do about these fields: Questions have been raised before. I have put in some comments given by people: * zone-c: * Should be zone contact of closest parent domain with a separate SOA * record? Why duplicate the information? According to some the zone-c for the closest SOA should be mentioned here. Other suggest that for MX only domains have no zone-c. * nserver: * Same as above? Each domain has a nserver, even an MX only domain. The MX records must be somewhere. This domain has no SOA though. * sub-dom: * Is it really necessary to list the sub-names in use (this also goes * for the general case, but also for the MX-only case) If you wish so. Most people do. Last meeting the DNS working group decided that the first level of useful domain names should be stored in the database, below that is for your own choice. You van in this way restrict the number of objects you have. Most useful level is usually 2, 3 in cases where co, ac and other second level domains are used: Useful: nikhef.nl ulcc.ac.uk ... Database and DNS working group, what say you ? -Marten

3 3

Re: 193.in-addr.arpa block delegation procedures (draft)
by Marten Terpstra 19 Mar '93

19 Mar '93

[Comments from Havard] * - how do one request delegation of a subdomain of 193.in-addr.arpa. * Contact hostmaster(a)ripe.net with a free-form text message, or should we * bother to create a form? Ahh, no extra forms please !!! All we need to know is class C block, and all the servers. I do not think we need another form for that ... Please just contact hostmaster(a)ripe.net with the needed information. We will be able to parse it ;-) Or maybe the suggestions below ... * - How will the domain administrators for the subdomains of 193.in-addr.arpa * be made aware of a desire to have delegation installed for a subdomain? * There was some talk about doing this semi-automatically with the nic when * a RIPE network registration form was sent in to ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net or * assign(a)ripe.net, could this be used here (in addition to other means)? In fact we have the following in mind. For blocks that are not yet delegated, we intend to use the information people supply in the "rev-srv:" field to update the 193.in-addr.arpa domain. For blocks that have been delegated, the people that have been assigned class C nets from such a block should be made aware that reverse registration should be done by either the NCC is the local registry does NOT run the delegated block, or by the local registry. We could look into extending our "rev-srv:" program to notify maintainers of blocks in 193.in-addr.arpa if the information in the database has changed. They could then update their zones if needed. This however does imply that the "rev-srv:" field becomes authoritative for reverse mapping (and not vice versa) [Suggestions from Blasco] * 2a. The names of the reverse nameserver which are delegated by RIPE-NCC * to act as authoritative servers for a 256-class C block are sent * to the RIPE-NCC and registered in the RIPE db using a template * like this: * * inetnum: 193.x.0.0 (where x is the block number) * <administravia> * zone-c: <person> * rev-srv: <first server name> * rev-srv: <second server name> * rev-srv: ns.ripe.net * * as soon as the Local IR receives from RIPE-NCC a new block to * administer. I do not quite like this idea. 193.x.0.0 is a normal class C network number that just could be used (although we recommend not to do so) and I hate having information in the database with "some special meaning you have to know". The other thing would be to just have an extra entry for the complete block in the database (so you would get two answers if you queried a network inside the block), but that I do not like because you are not responsible for individual nets inside the block... If you really want to put it in the database, why not send in an object like: domain: 204.193.in-addr.arpa descr: blah zone-c: <person> nserver: <first server> nserver: <second server> nserver: ns.ripe.net .... It is a domain, so why not pick the right object for it ? * 7. Usually the registration of reverse servers for individual class C nets * or class C subblocks is done by the service provider who is administering * the whole 256-class C block who in turn notifies the RIPE-NCC sending * an updated network template for inclusion in the RIPE db. * However should the RIPE-NCC receive any template for a single class C net * or subblock not from the service provider, they must forward the template * to the authoritative zone-c for the 256-class C block. Totally agree. We will not "overrule" delegations by putting them directly in 193.in-addr.arpa, like we expect hostmaster(a)nic.ddn.mil to do the same. We will of course forward such requests. I will update the document with regard to the last point, and the other point if we can each agreement on the "how to notify I want a block delegated". An object like above could be used as a request for delegation of a block. -Marten

2 6

Re: 193.in-addr.arpa block delegation procedures (draft)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet, +43 1 436111 355 19 Mar '93

19 Mar '93

> individual nets inside the block... If you really want to put it in the > database, why not send in an object like: > > domain: 204.193.in-addr.arpa > descr: blah > zone-c: <person> > nserver: <first server> > nserver: <second server> > nserver: ns.ripe.net > .... > I'm really in favour of this approach, because it seems to fit nicely into the system and we can access the information with tools that need not have any special knowledge, as Marten pointed out already. Wilfried.

1 0

in-addr.arpa zone data in RIPE database
by Daniel Karrenberg 03 Mar '93

03 Mar '93

Folks, since we have observed many inconsistencies between the RIPE database and the DNS regarding reverse mapping zones in in-addr.arpa we have developed a little checking script. The current output can be found in ftp.ripe.net:ripe/ripe-op/in-addr.check It lists all networks for which discrepancies have been detected as follows: First the RIPE database entry in short format: *in: 128.131.0.0 *na: TUNET-F *de: LAN Technical University of Vienna *cy: AT *ac: Johannes Demel *tc: Johannes Demel *co: LOCAL *as: 697 *rz: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at *ch: demel(a)noc.tuwien.ac.at 930202 *so: RIPE Then a list of all reverse servers as listed in the database: DB servers: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at Then a list of all reverse servers found in the DNS: DNS servers: Then a diagnostic each server which has something wrong: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at: only in DB and not reverse server for 128.131.0.0! tunameb.tuwien.ac.at: only in DB and not reverse server for 128.131.0.0! Then a list of suggested actions to resolve the inconsistency: DB remove 128.131.0.0: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at Note that the recommended actions are not the only way to resolve the problem. In the example above one could also set up the name servers and register them in the DNS. The script tries the shortes path. Please go through the list and see wether any of your nets needs action. Questions: Should we automatically make the suggested changes in the RIPE database? Or should we send mail to the technical contacts asking them to change things? We have asked the NIC accept change notices from us, so that registration of reverse servers in the database would be enough to get them into the DNS. Is this desirable? Daniel By way of example here is the start of the current file: *in: 128.131.0.0 *na: TUNET-F *de: LAN Technical University of Vienna *cy: AT *ac: Johannes Demel *tc: Johannes Demel *co: LOCAL *as: 697 *rz: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at *ch: demel(a)noc.tuwien.ac.at 930202 *so: RIPE DB servers: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at DNS servers: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at: is only in DB and is not reverse server for 128.131.0.0! tunameb.tuwien.ac.at: is only in DB and is not reverse server for 128.131.0.0! DB remove 128.131.0.0: tunamea.tuwien.ac.at tunameb.tuwien.ac.at *in: 129.177.0.0 *na: BERGEN-NET *de: Bergen University, Norway *cy: NO *ac: Kenneth Hostland *tc: Kenneth Hostland *co: NORDU RIPE NSF *as: 224 *gw: kth *rz: alf.uib.no eik.ii.uib.no aun.uninet.no *ch: ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net 920914 *so: RIPE DB servers: alf.uib.no aun.uninet.no eik.ii.uib.no DNS servers: alf.uib.no aun.uninett.no eik.ii.uib.no aun.uninet.no: is only in DB and does not exist! aun.uninett.no: is only in DNS and is OK DB add 129.177.0.0: aun.uninett.no DB remove 129.177.0.0: aun.uninet.no note: obiously a spelling error in the database *in: 129.206.0.0 *na: HD-NET *de: University of Heidelberg *de: BelWue *cy: DE *ac: Michael Hebgen *tc: Lothar Binding *tc: Peter Merdian *co: RIPE NSF WIN *rl: HEPNET *bl: DESY *as: 553 *gw: crn *rz: sun0.URZ.Uni-Heidelberg.DE sun1.URZ.Uni-Heidelberg.DE noc.BelWue.DE ns.Germany.EU.net deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE *ch: rv(a)Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE 920530 *ch: ar(a)deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE 920601 *ch: ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net 920602 *so: RIPE DB servers: deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de noc.belwue.de ns.germany.eu.net sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de sun1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de DNS servers: sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de sun1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de: is only in DB and is OK noc.belwue.de: is only in DB and is OK ns.germany.eu.net: is only in DB and is OK DNS add 129.206.0.0: deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de noc.belwue.de ns.germany.eu.net note: the DNS is missing some servers *in: 130.37.0.0 *na: VU-NET *de: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam *de: Amsterdam *cy: NL *ac: Jacques Schuurman *tc: Jacques Schuurman *co: RIPE NSF SARA SURF *gw: cwi *rz: ohrid.cca.vu.nl *rz: star.cs.vu.nl *ch: dfk(a)cwi.nl 900802 *ch: Erik-Jan.Bos(a)surfnet.nl 920708 *ch: Erik-Jan.Bos(a)surfnet.nl 920708 *ch: ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net 920708 *ch: martijn(a)nluug.nl 921110 *so: RIPE DB servers: ohrid.cca.vu.nl star.cs.vu.nl DNS servers: hardy.nat.vu.nl ohrid.cca.vu.nl star.cs.vu.nl hardy.nat.vu.nl: is only in DNS and is OK DB add 130.37.0.0: hardy.nat.vu.nl *in: 130.192.0.0 *na: TORINO-IT-LAN *de: Politecnico di Torino *de: CISIP *cy: IT *ac: Silvano Gai *tc: Antonio Lioy *co: GARR *as: 137 *rz: 130.192.2.91 leonardo.polito.it *rz: 130.192.2.117 galileo.polito.it *rz: 130.192.3.1 ercole.polito.it *rz: 192.12.192.5 dns.nis.garr.it *rm: LAN's and MAN connecting University departments and *rm: research institutes located in or near Torino *rm: fully managed *ch: ip-reg(a)nis.garr.it 930115 *so: RIPE DB servers: dns.nis.garr.it ercole.polito.it galileo.polito.it jolly.nis.garr.it leonardo.polito.it DNS servers: dns.nis.garr.it ercole.polito.it galileo.polito.it leonardo.polito.it jolly.nis.garr.it: is only in DB and is OK DNS add 130.192.0.0: jolly.nis.garr.it note: the addresses in the database are not conforming to the database format, but the script resolves them and deletes duplicate entries *in: 130.231.0.0 *na: OUNET *de: University Ethernet network *de: Oulu University *de: Oulu *cy: FI *ac: Kaisu Ranta *tc: Raimo Salo *co: NORDU RIPE NSF FUNET *as: 1741 *rz: ousrvr.oulu.fi *ch: lk-kr(a)finou.oulu.fi 930119 *so: RIPE DB servers: ousrvr.oulu.fi DNS servers: hydra.helsinki.fi ousrvr.oulu.fi hydra.helsinki.fi: is only in DNS and is OK DB add 130.231.0.0: hydra.helsinki.fi *in: 130.251.0.0 *na: GENUANET *de: Universita' degli Studi di Genova *cy: IT *ac: Pier Paolo Puliafito *tc: Tiziana Podesta' *co: GARR *as: 137 *rz: 192.148.193.8 sun.cisi.unige.it SUN UNIX *rz: 130.251.1.4 dist.dist.unige.it SUN UNIX *rm: Multiple interconnected LANs of academic institutes *rm: located in Genoa *ch: ip-reg(a)nis.garr.it 930210 *so: RIPE DB servers: dist.dist.unige.it sun sun.cisi.unige.it unix DNS servers: carla.dist.unige.it dist.dist.unige.it nameserver.cnr.it carla.dist.unige.it: is only in DNS and is not responding! nameserver.cnr.it: is only in DNS and is OK sun: is only in DB and does not exist! sun.cisi.unige.it: is only in DB and is OK unix: is only in DB and does not exist! DB add 130.251.0.0: nameserver.cnr.it DNS add 130.251.0.0: sun.cisi.unige.it DB remove 130.251.0.0: sun unix note: "interesting" syntax server data seems out of date *in: 131.114.0.0 *na: PISA-NET *de: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche *de: Pisa *cy: IT *ac: Marco Sommani *tc: Vittorio Miori *co: GARR *as: 137 *rz: 192.12.192.4 nameserver.cnr.it *rz: 128.84.254.152 odin.cs.cornell.edu *rz: 131.114.1.32 itgbox.cnuce.cnr.it *rz: 192.65.81.6 ns.surfnet.nl *rz: 131.114.21.10 serra.unipi.it *rm: Multiple-Lan of CNR institutes and University departments in Pisa *rm: This net belongs to the nation-wide CNRnet, coordinated *rm: thru the cnr-core working group. CNRnet is member of GARR. *ch: ip-reg(a)nis.garr.it 930204 *so: RIPE DB servers: itgbox.cnuce.cnr.it nameserver.cnr.it ns.surfnet.nl odin.cs.cornell.edu serra.unipi.it survey.surfnet.nl DNS servers: itgbox.cnuce.cnr.it nameserver.cnr.it ns.surfnet.nl odin.cs.cornell.edu serra.unipi.it survey.surfnet.nl: is only in DB and is OK DNS add 131.114.0.0: survey.surfnet.nl *in: 131.155.0.0 *na: TUENET1 *de: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven *de: Eindhoven *cy: NL *ac: Joop Schillemans *tc: Joep Brand *co: RIPE NSF SURF *ni: 1=590 *rz: tuegate.tue.nl *ch: piet(a)cwi.nl 910501 *so: RIPE DB servers: tuegate.tue.nl DNS servers: rc6.urc.tue.nl tuegate.tue.nl rc6.urc.tue.nl: is only in DNS and is OK DB add 131.155.0.0: rc6.urc.tue.nl *in: 131.174.0.0 *na: NUNET *de: Universiteit Nijmegen *de: Nijmegen *cy: NL *ac: Jos Alsters *ac: Peter van Campen *tc: Jos Alsters *tc: Peter van Campen *co: RIPE NSF SURF *ni: 1=590 *rz: wn1.sci.kun.nl *rz: wn3.sci.kun.nl *ch: piet(a)cwi.nl 910501 *so: RIPE DB servers: wn1.sci.kun.nl wn3.sci.kun.nl DNS servers: wn0.sci.kun.nl wn3.sci.kun.nl wn0.sci.kun.nl: is only in DNS and is OK wn1.sci.kun.nl: is only in DB and does not exist! DB add 131.174.0.0: wn0.sci.kun.nl DB remove 131.174.0.0: wn1.sci.kun.nl *in: 131.211.0.0 *na: RUUNET *de: Universiteit Utrecht *de: Utrecht *cy: NL *ac: Dre Hopmans *tc: Dre Hopmans *co: RIPE NSF SURF *ni: 1=590 *rz: accucx.cc.ruu.nl *rz: praxis.cs.ruu.nl *ch: piet(a)cwi.nl 910501 *so: RIPE DB servers: accucx.cc.ruu.nl praxis.cs.ruu.nl DNS servers: accucx.cc.ruu.nl infix.cs.ruu.nl kali.cc.ruu.nl infix.cs.ruu.nl: is only in DNS and is OK kali.cc.ruu.nl: is only in DNS and is OK praxis.cs.ruu.nl: is only in DB and is not responding! DB add 131.211.0.0: infix.cs.ruu.nl kali.cc.ruu.nl

5 15