June 2002 - routing-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Sabine Dolderer/Denic 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

Hello Arnold, On 06.06.2002 16:55 Arnold Nipper <arnold(a)nipper.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote: > > > > > > Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP > > In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of > > internet. > > If an IXP decides to offer infrastructural services then you have to buy > upstream of course. > > > Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential > > services, internet will be more robust. > > > > At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such > infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their > customers would benefit from it. I agree that IXPs would be very gould locations as they offer network diversity, but there is one question still open and that is who will be the one running the and monitoring the server. And we at DENIC have seen in the last years an increasing demand in running the servics by ourself as only then we have the complete control and information about statistics, network attacks, performance ... There is a project within CENTR where we try to share secondary services on one host with the advantage for all geting these informations. (And yes we are still working to connect to DECIX ;-) ) Sabine > > And an IXP should be in a good position to get upstream :-)) And for > the commercials: these services are not for free of course. So bills > for IXP members will drop not raise. > > > -- Arnold > > -- Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenhï¿½ttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt eMail: Sabine.Dolderer(a)denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235

1 0

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by John Payne 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 07:53:49PM +0000, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote: ... > > I don't know of any official requirements. But RFCs 2182 and 2870 > > offer good guidance. (Some of 2870 is root zone-specific, but most of > > it would apply to a ccTLD server.) > > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) > > It is perhaps instructive to note that when RFC 2870 was written, (most of) > the roots also hosted COM,NET,ORG. Considered properly, RFC 2870 is > more targeted toward gTLD servers. ccTLDs have a moderately different > focus, while root servers are distinct from either in their requirements. So how does the operation of gTLD servers differ from ccTLD servers, other than perhaps more focus on geographical diversity?

2 1

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Steven M. Bellovin 06 Jun '02

06 Jun '02

In message <200206061624.40230.dani(a)intelideas.com>, Daniel Concepcion writes: > >Yes Neil, > >It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations >for ccTLD's hosting >For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building >environment., etc > I don't know of any official requirements. But RFCs 2182 and 2870 offer good guidance. (Some of 2870 is root zone-specific, but most of it would apply to a ccTLD server.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

3 2

KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Daniel Diaz 06 Jun '02

06 Jun '02

Dear all, Given the current situation of KPNQwest and the possibility of its services going offline sometime soon, the RIPE NCC in agreement with KPNQwest will be temporally hosting this server (ns.eu.net) in its premises. This is to avoid major problems in the Internet as this server is secondary for a large number of ccTLD's zones, and thousand other zones. We (AS3333) will be soon announcing the 192.16.202.0/24 prefix. Trusting that this is welcome news. Best regards. -- RIPE NCC -- Daniel.Diaz Operations Manager RIPE NCC

13 16

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Sabine Dolderer/Denic 06 Jun '02

06 Jun '02

Hello, DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but also for some other TLDs) in different places worldwide. We are willing to offer secondary service for other ccTLDs. But there will be because of security/stability reasons a limit on the number of ccTLDs we want to run on a single machine. Sabine -- Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenhï¿½ttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt eMail: Sabine.Dolderer(a)denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235 Jan-Ahrent Czmok An: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao(a)ripe.net> <czmok@gatel. Kopie: randy(a)psg.com, ddiaz(a)ripe.net, routing-wg(a)ripe.net, net> lir-wg(a)ripe.net, tech-l(a)ams-ix.net, apops(a)lists.apnic.net, Gesendet von: nanog(a)merit.edu, apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net owner-lir-wg@ Thema: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. ripe.net 06.06.2002 01:29 PostedDate: 06.06.2002 01:29:37 $MessageID: <20020606012937.2c476312.czmok(a)gatel.net> From: owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net SendTo: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao(a)ripe.net> CopyTo: randy@psg.com;ddiaz@ripe.net;routing-wg@ripe.net;lir-wg@ripe.net;tech-l@ams-ix.net;apops@lists.apnic.net;nanog@merit.edu;apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. Received: from smtp.denic.de ([194.246.96.22]) by notes.denic.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002060601283597:15602 ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:28:35 +0200 Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by smtp.denic.de with smtp id 17FkCg-0004uX-00; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:28:34 +0200 Received: (qmail 11455 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2002 23:28:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 11452 invoked by uid 66); 5 Jun 2002 23:28:15 -0000 Delivered_To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net PRINCIPAL: Jan-Ahrent Czmok <czmok(a)gatel.net> In_Reply_To: <p05111700b92449b9ddee(a)[193.0.1.81]> References: <200206051725.g55HPlA05396(a)birch.ripe.net> <E17Ff8f-0003So-00(a)roam.psg.com> <p05111700b92449b9ddee(a)[193.0.1.81]> Organization: Global Access Telecommunications Inc. $Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6claws16 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) X_Ncc_RegID: de.gatel MIME_Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk X_Loop_Detect: RIPE NCC SMTPOriginator: owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net RouteServers: CN=notes/O=Denic RouteTimes: 06.06.2002 01:28:36-06.06.2002 01:28:38 DeliveredDate: 06.06.2002 01:28:38 DENICDOCOPENCOUNT: 1 $MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 06.06.2002 01:28:36;MIME-CD by Notes Client on Sabine Dolderer/Denic(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 06.06.2002 09:32:28;MIME-CD complete at 06.06.2002 09:32:28 BlindCopyTo: WebSubject: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:08:46 +0200 Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > At 11:04 -0700 5/6/02, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Given the current situation of KPNQwest and the possibility > >> of its services going offline sometime soon, the RIPE NCC in > >> agreement with KPNQwest will be temporally hosting this > >> server (ns.eu.net) in its premises. > > > >nice emergency hack and sorry to whine. but i used them both > >to get diversity. > > Hi Randy, > > there are 16 ccTLDs for which ns.ripe.net and ns.eu.net are both > secondary. So we will definitely request those ccTLDs to look for a > new host as soon as possible. Hi Randy, hi Joao, dear routing-wg, probably my Company (GATEL, AS13129) is able to host a secondary server for the ccTLDs. The question is rather what are the hardware "requirements" for the secondary server. We have sufficient bandwidth capacity available and rack space as well. > The rest can take bit more time to think what they want to do since > ns.eu.net will keep running. Well done ! Congrats for the good ideas and coordination work. > > We are offering secondary service on ns.ripe.net for any ccTLD that > we weren't sencodaring for, as are other people. > > The idea is not to have ns.eu.net running for ever, just to enable > people to have time to take rational decisions, without the fear of > having the server going away because of some unexpected turn of > events. > > > > >when in less of a panic, please move it to moscow or something. > > Panic? what panic? this is just common sense > right. it's not panic. --jan -- Jan Ahrent Czmok - Senior Network Engineer - Access Networks Global Access Telecommunications, Inc. - Stephanstr. 3 - 60313 Frankfurt voice: +49 69 299896-35 - fax: +49 69 299896-66 - email: czmok(a)gatel.de

9 8

New IPv6 blcok allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 04 Jun '02

04 Jun '02

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:0800::/23 from the IANA in May 2002. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC, Registration Services Assistant Manager

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-242
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 04 Jun '02

04 Jun '02

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A New document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-242 Title: Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes Author: Joao Luis Silva Damas, Leo Vegoda Date: 4 June 2002 Format: PS=22198 TXT=2179 Obsoletes: ripe-222 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document contains the size of the minimum and default allocations made by the RIPE NCC to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) and End Users from IPv4 and IPv6 CIDR blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-242.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-242.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-242 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Webmaster

1 0

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 01 Jun '02

01 Jun '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri May 31 23:00:01 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amount of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report <cidr-report(a)cisco.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 31May02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 240502 110020 250502 110319 260502 109931 270502 110178 280502 110335 290502 110367 300502 110842 310502 110978 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 220.36.0.0/16 from AS17676 *** Bogus 220.40.0.0/16 from AS17676 *** Bogus 220.47.0.0/16 from AS17676 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 13044 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 7934 (4445 cidr, 3489 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 635 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1357 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 31May02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1357 1087 270 19.9% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1221 1109 860 249 22.5% UNREGISTERED AS17557 285 109 176 61.8% Pakistan Telecom AS852 587 428 159 27.1% Telus Advanced Communications AS7018 816 685 131 16.1% AT&T AS16473 198 77 121 61.1% Bell South AS6595 167 56 111 66.5% DoD Education Activity Network As AS705 304 203 101 33.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4151 236 141 95 40.3% USDA AS19632 98 4 94 95.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS1239 511 423 88 17.2% Sprint AS16814 104 19 85 81.7% NSS, S.A. AS12302 120 35 85 70.8% SingNet AS7046 328 244 84 25.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7303 148 68 80 54.1% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS2048 181 104 77 42.5% State of Louisiana AS577 267 194 73 27.3% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4323 416 345 71 17.1% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS724 220 154 66 30.0% DLA Systems Automation Center AS226 154 91 63 40.9% Los Nettos AS3464 166 104 62 37.3% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 83 23 60 72.3% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS4755 169 110 59 34.9% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS1 455 397 58 12.7% GENUITY AS3908 311 254 57 18.3% Supernet, Inc. AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS209 312 256 56 17.9% Qwest AS9051 81 26 55 67.9% INCONET Autonomous System AS3233 105 51 54 51.4% RNC - Romanian Natioanal R&D Netw Total 55292 42691 12601 22.8% For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0