- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE Database Release 1.70 Available
by Denis Walker 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce that we will deploy a new release of the RIPE Database to the TEST Database environment on Thursday, 31 October 2013. The release is scheduled for production deployment on Thursday, 12 November 2013. Detailed information about the new release, including dates and information about the changes, can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/ripe-database-release-1.70 Of special note in this release is the inclusion of "pending route authentication". This is an alternative and simplified way of authorising route object creation. Two separate updates for a single route/route6 object are treated as one create request. This has no impact on users who still submit a complete route object with all authorisations included. If you have any questions or comments, we look forward to hearing them. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

1 1

2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Gilles Massen 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Dear all, I support proposal 2012-07's adoption as policy. It seems fairly balanced and should provide an option for every LRH without putting unacceptable load on the RIPE NCC (or its members). Thanks to the authors. Best regards, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473

1 0

is IPv4 address solicitation compatible with DB AUP or spam?
by Wilfried Woeber 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Well, "it" seems to take off, we keep getting solicitations for IPv4 address transfer to (presumably) all contact addresses linked to in our resource objects. Some of these messages are from an idividual who seemingly is advertising for at least 2 different brokers. So here's my question: is that sort of spamming compatible with the DB-AUP? How about some sort of opt-out tag, telling everyone and her dog: "no, don't bother to ask, we won't give you our addresses"? Thanks, Wilfried

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Tore Anderson 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi WG, Clarifying the "legal" status of the legacy holders without taking away any of their pre-existing rights is an improvement over the current undefined and ad-hoc practices, and I think it will likely cause a positive incentive for these organisations to actively participate in the community and to keep their registry entries accurate, which is a benefit not only to the legacy holders themselves and the RIPE NCC and its membership, but the entire internet and routing communities as a whole. I believe 2012-07 accomplishes the above while striking a decent balance between the interests of all involved parties. That said, I do not see the purpose of section 2.4 «Option to engage directly with the RIPE NCC». Section 2.2 «Option to become a RIPE NCC member» seems to me to accomplish the same thing, only without requiring a new contract class to be established. Having only two options (full member, or registered via a sponsoring LIR) would maintain consistency with current operational practices regarding PI assignments, and would reduce the operational impact of this policy as existing business structures and practices already instated for PI holders could be re-used for legacy holders. For this reason I will likely vote against the creation of such a special contract option at the AGM. Nor do I see the purpose of section 2.5 «When there are obstacles for 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4», as section 2.6 «No relationship» seems to cover this case. Perhaps it's only my imagination being limited, but the only likely "obstacle" I can envision here is that the resource holder cannot produce adequate proof of ownership, and in that case section 2.6 ("the status quo, but no more") seems like the the most reasonable way to proceed. I'd certainly be opposed to the RIPE NCC unilaterally having to "confirm" such unproved ownership, e.g., by providing certification services, in the same way as if ownership was properly proven according to the provisions in sections 2.1 through 2.4. That said, the Impact Analysis seems to me to say that section 2.5 would be implemented in pretty much the same way as section 2.6, so I suppose there is no real cause for concern here even though the policy text itself makes me somewhat uneasy. So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5 be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a net benefit. Therefore: Support. Tore (a RIPE NCC member who holds no legacy resources)

1 1

2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by JÁKÓ András 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

Dear Colleagues, I support proposal 2012-07's adoption as a RIPE policy. Thanks for the work of the authors! András

1 0

Asking Used IPs Monitoring Methods
by Jahangir Asadi 02 Nov '13

02 Nov '13

Dear Sir or Madam I have some customers who I have dedicated high band width a wide ranges of IPv4 addresses to them. Because of lack of IPv4, I would like to see that how many IPs they are using. It would be grateful if you tell me how can I do this and what soft ware I have to use to monitor the used IPs. I would like to thank you in advance and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Regards. Jahangir Asadi Network Manager of Padidar Information Technology (Your LIR Member and the owner of AS198357)

1 0

Policy proposal 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders"
by Mihael Dimec 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Hello all, I would like to add my support for policy proposal 2012-07. Best regards, Mihael Dimec

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Team 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

[8-1123000002024] Peering down between AS57633 and Google [ref a76933]
by nst＠google.com 28 Oct '13

28 Oct '13

Google Network Incident Notification - Reference *a76933* ------------------------------ Our monitoring systems have detected the following problem: BGP peering session with AS 57633 is down. Details: Google ASN: 15169Peer ASN: 57633Google Address:37.49.236.2 Peer Address: 37.49.236.226 Symptom(s): Hold Timer Expired Error Please investigate and provide an update via this email thread. Thank you for peering with Google! ------------------------------ PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail communication and any attached documents may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). If the reader is neither the intended recipient nor an employee or agent thereof who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail and promptly delete the original electronic e-mail communication and any attached documentation. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work-product privilege.

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Niall O'Reilly 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

On 10 Oct 2013, at 15:07, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. > > Some of the main differences from version 3.0 include: > > - Rewording and new text in section 1.2 (Scope) > - Rewording and new text in section 2.6 (No relationship) > - New section 2.7 (Lapse of relationship or agreement) > - Rewording and new text in section 3.0 (Contractual requirements) > - An amendment to the existing policy document ripe-592 Thanks to Marco for a concise and accurate list of differences. Thanks also to Athina and Andrea for making us proposers aware of gaps in the previous version and of passages where divergent readings of the text could lead to differences of understanding. Here's Marco's list again, with some extra detail. - Rewording and new text in section 1.2 (Scope) Proposed policy will supersede provisions of any existing RIPE policy which refer to legacy resources. Part of one sentence of RIPE-592 is the only policy identified as affected by this. Proposed policy will allow scope of any future RIPE policy to include legacy resources, but only if this is done explicitly. Proposed policy deliberately avoids specifying or restricting what rights are enjoyed by the holders of legacy resources. Proposed policy provides for surrender or conversion of legacy resources on the basis of informed choice by the holder. - Rewording and new text in section 2.6 (No relationship) Redundant text was removed; remaining text was tidied up. - New section 2.7 (Lapse of relationship or agreement) RIPE NCC identified the absence of guidance on how to handle lapse of agreement as a gap in the previous version of the proposal. - Rewording and new text in section 3.0 (Contractual requirements) New text focuses on mutual obligations, and avoids reference to rights of legacy resource holders, as these are placed out of scope in the current version of the proposal. - An amendment to the existing policy document ripe-592 This amendment was recognized as necessary in order to ensure coherency between RIPE-592 and the proposed new policy. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

2 1