RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8
As I am Chair of the NRO Executive Council this year, I will speak on behalf of the 5 RIRs regarding this matter. The 5 RIRs and IANA have been engaged in discussions regarding the IPv4 file. We are working together on this. In the process we have been doing a lot of cross checking of the data in the file. Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Conrad > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:03 PM > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8 > > > Michael, > > On Apr 15, 2007, at 2:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The world moved on around them but you > > still see things like IANA's non-parseable text file > > The text file is parseable -- we have empirical evidence. Every time > we change the format slightly, people yell at us. > > > At the > > same time, IANA and the RIRs just keep doing the same old thing as > > their > > data and systems slowly rot away. > > Not really. I can't speak to the RIRs, but IANA is working on both > cleaning up the data in all our registries as well as coming up with > an XML-based alternative representation for those registries. > > > Why doesn't IANA operate a whois server? > > We do. The proper question to ask is why isn't our whois server > populated with address information instead of just domain name > information. I don't know the reason historically. However, today, > when the topic was recently raised, concerns were expressed that IANA > would be seen in competition with the RIRs and there are those that > believe IANA (ICANN) should have no "operational" role whatsoever. > With that said, IANA continues to look at adding top level (i.e., /8s > for IPv4) block allocation information to the IANA whois server and > this is something we're discussing with the RIRs -- I don't think > anybody is particularly happy with the current state of affairs. > > > Why don't they publish a more detailled explanation field in each > IANA > > allocation record so that they can explain the precise status of each > > block? > > What sort of additional information would be helpful? As mentioned > above, we're preparing an XML-based alternative representation of > various IANA registries which would give us a lot more flexibility > than the current text based representation. Feel free to send mail > privately as this might get a bit down in the weeds for NANOG. > > > Why doesn't IANA and the RIRs collectively get off their butts and > > actually make an "authoritative IP address allocation directory" > > one of > > their goals? > > Improving the IANA registries is one of our goals. While I can't > speak to the RIRs, I suspect it is one of their goals as well. > > > And why don't they do all this with some 21st century technology? > > I was wondering when LDAP would show up in this discussion... :-) > > Rgds, > -drc
RE: keeping the routing table in check: step 1
This presentation was made at the ARIN meeting in Orlando earlier in the year. It is also available at http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XV/PDF/mon/mei-wang.pdf Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:07 AM > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: keeping the routing table in check: step 1 > > > > Find the largest contiguous block. Split in half. Round to appropriate > > > Have you seen this? > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-ipv6- > alt-algo.pdf > > --Michael Dillon
RE: Changes to the Nanog Mailing List Administration Team
Robert is also a member of the ARIN Advisory Council. Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Malayter, Christopher > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:54 PM > To: 'nanog@merit.edu' > Subject: Changes to the Nanog Mailing List Administration Team > > > Good Afternoon, > > It is my pleasure to announce that Robert Seastrom will be joining the > Nanog > Mailing List Administration Team. He joins us as Martin Hannigan departs > the list team. > > A bit about Robert, > >Robert Seastrom is a freelance consultant specializing in supporting >production and testbed IP networks. He was a cofounder and former >president of the Cambridge Bandwidth Consortium, a cooperative ISP in >Cambridge, Massachusetts. Previously, Robert was the Director of >Network Architecture at Inter.Net Global Ltd. Robert has also held >positions at Akamai Technologies, AboveNet Communications, and Digex, >and built pioneering ISPs in Japan and the Republic of Georgia. > > With the departure of Martin from the team, the position of chair has been > vacated. I have been selected to assume the chair of the list > administration team. > > As always we appreciate feedback to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, > > Chris Malayter > TDS Telecom - Network Services > Data Network Engineering > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: (608) 664-4878 > FAX: (608) 664-4644
RE: anycast roots
I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying, Bill. There is no single place where one can obtain authoritative information about the root server system and all of its individual servers. There is no single organization that speaks in any collective manner for the root server operators. Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:19 AM > To: Andrei Robachevsky > Cc: Elmar K. Bins; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: anycast roots > > > > Helsinki (FI); Geneva (CH). www.root-servers.org is up to date. > > for those nodes that choose to use root-servers.org as a publication > method, that might be true. I take your note to mean that www.root- > servers.org > is up to date wrt the publication of deployed sites for the K > server. > > Don't presume to speak for the other operators please. > > -- bill > > > > > >Elmar. > > > > > > > Andrei Robachevsky > > RIPE NCC > >
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
This thread was started by Leo Bicknell on Mon Nov 08 14:28:16 2004. The original post stated: "The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now for IPv6 "private networks". Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined for the IPv6 world. Those two drafts can be found at: "http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.tx t http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt"; "Since this is a list of providers, I encourage you to read the drafts, and submit your comments to the working group. The information for the working group is at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html, and includes their mailing list archives and information on how to subscribe and/or post." "Even if you disagree with me, much like voting the important thing is that you voice your opinion." As Leo said, these two drafts are under consideration by the IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6). Mail list information is: General Discussion: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 In Body: subscribe Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/index.html Looking at the archives for the working group there has been no recent discussion of these drafts. In the past two days there have been over 80 posts to this thread. This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the discussion is not on their mail list. The IETF works best when people directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process. I encourage you to move this discussion to the working group mail list and if you are at the IETF to attend the IPv6 Working Group at 9 AM, Thursday morning in the Georgetown room. The session is also multicast. Ray
RE: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
Good point! You can reduce TTLs to such a point that the servers will become preoccupied with doing something other than providing answers. Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:12 AM > To: Matt Larson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net > > > Matt, others, > > I am a quite concerned about these zone update speed improvements > because they are likely to result in considerable pressure to reduce > TTLs **throughout the DNS** for little to no good reason. > > It will not be long before the marketeers will discover that they do not > deliver what they (implicitly) promise to customers in case of **changes > and removals** rather than just additions to a zone. > > Reducing TTLs across the board will be the obvious *soloution*. > > Yet, the DNS architecture is built around effective caching! > > Are we sure that the DNS as a whole will remain operational when > (not if) this happens in a significant way? > > Can we still mitigate that trend by education of marketeers and users? > > Daniel
ARIN Comment
On Tuesday, 29 June, I assigned the ARIN General Counsel the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally or as an amicus in the case filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division for Morris County No: MRSC-87-04. ARIN's interest in reviewing this dispute was two fold: a. Determine whether the global and regional policies regarding the use of Internet Numbering Resources have been violated; and b. Determine whether the Registration Service Agreements which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have signed with ARIN have been violated. The pleadings in this case have been carefully reviewed by the ARIN General Counsel. As a result of that review we have preliminarily determined that neither the policies nor Registration Service Agreements have been violated. Therefore we have concluded that it is not appropriate for ARIN to intervene formally or as an amicus in this case. The parties to the dispute are the Plaintiff, a company known as University Communications dba Pegasus Web Technologies, which provides web hosting and internet access services to customers, and its principal; and the Defendant, Net Access Corporation, an ISP that supplied number resources, obtained from ARIN, to the Plaintiff. ARIN has no interest in the 'who shot John' allegations between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding claims of breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and etc. Stripped to its essence, it is clear that Plaintiff no longer wants to do business in the long run with Defendant, and appears to be following ARIN and Internet customary procedures to renumber client accounts in a manner that will permit its internet customers to seamlessly continue their use of the Internet, whether the number used was originally issued to the Defendant, then provided to the specific member of the public by the Plaintiff, or is now being renumbered by the Plaintiff. It does take time to renumber, and it appears the real issue in this suit is Plaintiff's attempt to obtain from the Court what it believes is sufficient time to accomplish this task. We express no opinion whether the Plaintiff might have moved faster in this regard and avoided this dispute, because those facts are not fully known to us. We have carefully reviewed the arguments provided and do not believe the arguments by the Plaintiff sought any relief inconstant with obtaining time to renumber, consistent with ARIN's and the Internet community's normal expectations. That is also the overall thrust of the Order to Show Cause With Temporary Restraints issued by the Court. There is language in that Order that if taken out of context of the arguments and spirit of the Order might have raised some concern. For example the Order does not clearly expire in several months consistent with the requested time to renumber. However, we have concluded it is not a problem when read in context and ARIN can at any point raise in any Court its objection to an open ended requirement that numbers supplied by business A to business B must be maintained in perpetuity and not renumbered. Therefore, we have concluded that the recent intense discussion was fueled by a characterization of the litigation by one of the parties in a manner that was intended to and did raise community concerns, that we do not agree are implicated at this time. We will continue to monitor this and other litigation that might genuinely raise these concerns, and will alert the community to such cases when we find them so courts can be educated about these policies. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO ARIN
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO
RE: updated root hints file
I couldn't agree more. Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:46 AM To: Coppola, Brian Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: updated root hints file > From: "Coppola, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: updated root hints file > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:19:43 -0500 > > > > In preparation for tomorrow morning's B-root IP change from 128.9.0.107 to > 192.228.79.201 we have posted updated root hints files. They are available > from the following URLs: > > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/db.cache > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.cache > ftp://rs.ineternic.net/domain/named.root > > and will be available from: > > ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/db.cache > ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/named.cache > ftp://ftp.ineternic.net/domain/named.root > > Brian > > Brian Coppola > Manager, Resolution Systems > Verisign Operations and Infrastructure (O&I) excuse me. this should be in a message from the iana signed with iana's pgp key randy
RE: comments on addressing futures....
John, I have forwarded your comments to the appropriate list so that they can be archived. Please look at the ARIN announcement for details concerning these documents. Thanks, Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Brown > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: comments on addressing futures > > > > YAO (yet another organization) > > Seems the world is full of orgs and people wanting to create > yet a new thing to solve the problem. Make it a new thing and > we can fix the issues at hand. > > I've seen enough of the BS between ICANN and ARIN (and other RIR's) > to know that if both sides would really sit down and be constructive > we wouldn't need YAO.. > > Now that ICANN has a bunch of new management (ergo LT and MLS > are gone) > maybe the RIR's and ICANN should put their hurt feeling (yes one hurt > badly bruised feeling) away and figure out how to work within the > structure that exists today. Ergo the ASO and ICANN > > I personally am quite worried about the RIR"s creating a NRO > (Is that Number Resource Org, or National Recon Org ??) > > I don't see the "broken part here". > > I don't see the masses screeming for the head(s) of the RIR on > a platter, ala Verisign and wildcards. > > I don't see the community pointing the finger en mass to the RIR's > and saying ITS BROKE, Someone should take it away from them. > > Heck, I don't even see the looneys out there really screaming > that the RIR process is broken. > > Since it doesn't really seem broken, why are we trying to 'fix' it ?? > > It does seem to me that a select few people want more control > (term empire building comes to mind) of the IP space and for various > non-operational (show me broken operational things wrt RIRs) reasons > want to kill ICANN. > > Killing ICANN in all seriousness isn't the right answer. Some months > ago I finally gave up on them, figured it was a lost cause and that > they should go the way of the dodo. > > Well that was a wrong thought. If we don't have them things will > be worse. They DO have to stand up to Verisign on this Wildcard > thing, but they can't do it in one day. > > Again, we the community should be helping ICANN get its act together. > > They are after all trying to hire some senior technical managment > people. Certainly there are qualified people on this list to > fill that slot. > > No, NRO is BAD, its bad like splitting the roots. Plain and simple > as that. > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:22:47PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > this from the ARIN-PPL mailing list... it deserves broad > consideration, > > even from NANOG :) > > > > --- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Since ARIN has been sending new proposals today, they seem to have > > forgotten the most important one of all, that applies to > all RIRs and how > > they deal with ICANN. The info is at > http://lacnic.net/sp/draft-9-22.html > > > > > -- > - > > The four RIRs (Regional Internet Registries): APNIC, ARIN, > LACNIC, and > > RIPE NCC have jointly worked on the preparation of a > proposal concerning > > the liaison among the RIRs as well as the structure through > which the > > RIRs and their communities take part in ICANN. > > > > As a consequence, three documents have been prepared: > > > > - Proposal to execute an agreement between the four RIRs in order to > > create the Number Resource Organization (NRO). This > organization will > > represent the interests of the IP addresses community before the > > national, international or public entities. > > > > - Proposal of a Memorandum of Understanding between the RIRs, to act > > through the NRO and the ICANN in relation to the ASO > (Address Supporting > > Organization), the ICANN section committed to the Internet Number > > Resources issues. The ASO was created through a previous > Memorandum of > > Understanding, signed in 1999. The current proposal would > replace the > > previous Memorandum, modifying the present ASO structure. > > > > - Proposal of an Open Letter from the RIRs to the ICANN > relative to the > > previous items. > > > > The RIRs call for public comments from the community > members in relation > > to these documents. As the comments will be jointly > organized, they will > > be officially managed in English. > > > > > > >
