Skip to main content

Minutes & Presentations

Please use the presentation title link to access the PDF version of the PowerPoint slides.

Monday 18 September, 2006
Meeting commenced at: 09:25

Opening:

Paul Rendek of the RIPE NCC welcomed the meeting attendees and thanked the sponsor, RUCenter, the meeting host and connectivity provider, MSK-IX, and the meeting co-hosts, DE-CIX and Garant Park Telecom (R01.RU). He also introduced the RIPE NCC staff present at the meeting.

Presentation: Introduction to RIPE / RIPE NCC
Speaker: Rob Blokzijl (RIPE) and Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC)

Rob gave an overview of RIPE. He explained that RIPE is a forum where Internet Service Providers and others interested in the advancement of the Internet meet to discuss and work on problems common to all. He presented a short history of RIPE, described how it is organised, discussed some work in progress and told attendees how to get involved.

Axel explained that the RIPE NCC is an independent and not-for-profit membership organisation with 4,200 members in more than 65 countries. He described how the activities and services of the RIPE NCC are defined, discussed, evaluated and performed in an open manner.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Presentation: RIPE NCC Activities Update
Speaker: Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel's presentation gave an overview of RIPE NCC activities, including membership services, coordination activities and information services.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Title: Statistical & Policy Update
Speaker: Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC

Leo gave a brief update on resource and service statistics before moving on to an update of active and recent policy discussions in the RIPE community. He concluded with an update showing active and recent policy discussions in all five RIR regions.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Title: ENUM Update
Speaker: Dmitry Burkov, Executive Board Member, RIPE NCC

Questions and comments

  • The question was raised if ENUM could be by operator rather than by country.
    It was stated that this is a political issue which would not be answered today. The numbering plans were developed a long time ago, it is the ITU prerogative. To do this by operator would not be possible except for specific cases such as satellite the ITU codes and the country codes assigned to them. The technology and the protocols themselves are not being discussed here. ENUM is carrier, operators based and Russia may not become involved in this. If the community would like to press on this, the Ministry will do something. If the community is not discussing this, the Ministry will do nothing. If members are interested, it is up to them.
  • The comment was made that the Ministry in its current state may have issues acting on any suggestions.
    The response was that they are the regulators and the membership needs to cooperate with and inform them. If the community creates sensible documents then sensible documents are likely to be adopted. Recent regulations were made without operator consultation.
  • The point was raised that bureaucracy slows down the process. E164 is based on the same technology and principles as ENUM protocols but it is an enthusiast's project. The database has 23 million available numbers.
    The response was that there are alternative trees to ENUM. Discussions were held in Europe, in RIPE and in the IETF which represent a threat. The biggest threat is the fragmentation of the address space. In this space only one tree can survive. It is possible to have private ENUM.
  • It was questioned whether there is a need for ENUM and whether it has official support, as other trees are available. The process for this ENUM tree is slowed down by the authorities. If there is no support for this tree, then alternatives will appear. The response indicated that governments won't allow a fragmented service.
  • The comment was raised that the two different systems would segment the RU and the commercial systems. It was replied that commercial systems were not being discussed at this meeting.
  • The point was made that regulations must be changed: resale is prohibited on all services. Operators had acted as wholesalers but then became retailers to 35 million users when the law changed. If you have a licence, you have to make direct payments with the user. Agency agreements are a way to enable this.
  • The issue of administration for alternative systems was raised, asking if the organisations that the presenters represented could apply pressure for regulations to be changed. It was made clear that it is up to the professional community to apply pressure for the system they want to use.
  • The comment was made that the last presenter on ENUM presented different information two years ago. At that time it was presented that the regulatory authorities were not a magic pill and that there were other ways around the current mechanisms.
    The response detailed that there is a real situation and the potential situation. At the moment, the regulatory body delegates the authority and the associations react to these. There are other organisations who work in this area and there is a place for everyone. In this way the government decides what to do and that we work with it.

Title: RIPE NCC Administrative Update
Speaker: Jochem de Ruig, RIPE NCC

Downloads:
Fact Book - Russian Version | English Version
Appendix: - Russian Version | English Version

These documents are in .pdf format and will open in a new browser window.

Jochem's RIPE NCC Billing Administration presentation gave an update on the administration between RIPE NCC and Russian members following the structure set up over the past two years. The presentation contained two main sections: an update on billing and contract administration including the new Russian fact sheet and the draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2007, including membership developments.

The first section highlighted the newly developed Russian fact sheet that explains the corporate and billing documents, the legal and tax issues and a section for new LIRs. Jochem also highlighted further improvements planned for 2007 (quarterly versus yearly invoicing). The second section consisted of membership developments, the changes made to the Charging Scheme 2007 and the new service fee structure for 2007. Attendees were invited to talk to Jochem after the session if they had more specific questions.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Title: RIPE NCC Technical Services Update
Speaker: Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC

The RIPE NCC offers a rich portfolio of technical services for the benefit of the Internet community. This portfolio consists of the RIPE Database services, the DNS services, such as reverse DNS and K-root, as well as information services. In this talk, Andrei gave a brief overview of these services. It was emphasised that these services are available to the entire RIPE NCC membership, often at no additional cost.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Title: DNSSEC in .RU
Speaker: Max Tulyev, Garant-Park-Telecom

Max gave a description of DNS vulnerabilities and a brief description of DNSSEC. He also detailed how DNSSEC in .RU is implemented.

Max also presented a step-by-step guide to securing a 2ld .RU domain with DNSSEC and how to effect a secure delegation of it.

Questions and comments

  • The topic of increases in traffic loads was raised. It was stated that the traffic is likely to increase by approximately four times and that .RU domains recommend 624 architecture. It was also noted that one gigabyte is the limit and this does not drop.
  • The comment was made that DNS may reduce address DNS SEC. It was responded that Distributed Denial of Services (DDOS) attacks became more sensitive to the servers. When the request is done, it is cached and not recalculated.
  • It was stated that deals have not been formalised with other registries but that installation at the root level of RU is desirable. The registry has also already been outsourced with 20,000 domains signed up and further work is being done with other registries on this.

Title: Overview and History of .UA TLD
Speaker: Tatyana Chernenko, Hostmaster Ltd.

Tatyana's presentation covered an overview of .UA top level domain including history, policy of domain registration, current activity and statistics.

The presentation detailed that a characteristic property of .UA domain is the existence of private and public domains. It was explained that public domains are administered in the interests of a certain community, while the private domains are administered by a individual in their own interests.

Tatyana commented that in the last few years, the UA domain could be characterised by the growth of registrations and the regional expansion. The presentation reflected the main trends of the delegation process for the period from 2001 to 2006. The technical aspects of the .UA ccTLD support were also provided.

Questions and comments

  • The topic of Ukrainian claims to domain names was raised. It was stated that there are no current UA disputes. All issues with domain holders have been settled out of court. It is usually the trademark holder who hands it over. The trademark office currently takes two months to register trademarks. This is impacting a negative trend, there is no unified system. Regionally distributed systems are preferred so some hostmasters prefer UA, and others offices support others. UA is workinjg with the patent office to simplify the procedure.
  • It was stated that com.ua is still normal in the Ukraine. The response was that a change was investigated but a comma is required for the change to make sense in the Ukrainian language.
  • It was mentioned that all allocations for the Ukraine have been made and there is no precedence for other registers allocating .ua addresses other than UATLD. Discussion regarding the travel.ua domain followed.
  • The comment was made that 13% of Russian content comes from the Ukraine. The providers price to Frankfurt is 20,000 US Dollars. Bilburg and Transk are ready to transit but present arrangements are through Frankfurt. Russia is stated to be responsible for this anomaly.

Title: ccTLD.RU Current State
Speaker: Pavel Khramtsov, RU-CENTER

Pavel's presentation included information on the number of .RU domain registrations by regions, by milestones and by domain names registered by registrars. He also showed the growth of .RU domain name registrations and a measurement toolkit.

Questions and comments

  • The number of PI's was discussed briefly and the IPv6 allocation comparisons were made. It was stated that IPv6 adresses do sometimes appear in the RU.Center at DNS server level.
  • The comment was made that the auction of the IPv6 addresses is conducted to cover advertising costs and the offsetting of RU.Center costs.
  • A discussion regarding the reduction of spam took place. The response was that the questioner should contact RU.Center indirectly through their ISP.
  • DNSSEC was commented on and it was concluded that it has been implemented on servers that don't have the authority to do so. It is not coordinated at the Rosniros center. The current set-up is there to protect the zone from the dynamic updates work that is suited to the DNSSEC. The simpler system would be to use the non-visible servers connected to the root servers.
  • It was stated that the number of non-Russian residents registering domain names in the RU. zone used to be 6% and is now 4%. These organisations receive legal technical assistance which is not available to Russian registrants.

Title: MSK-IX Overview and Perspectives
Speaker: Konstantin Tchoumatchenko, Moscow Internet Exchange

Konstantin gave an update on MSK-IX current status and activities. He highlighted MSK-IX plans to expand the services for the community of MSK-IX members.

Questions and comments

  • There was a discussion regarding an exchange of IPv6 and multicast traffic including the lowering of costs due to the lack of commercial activity. There was an offer of assistance by the organisation to aid the transition and discuss this further with any operators who would like to do so. IPv6 is active in four institutions in Russia already and peering is already happening in a pilot mode. Connectivity and reliability of networks is also being improved.
  • It was commented that IX is a tool which can be used in the wrong or right ways. Some nullified operators have connected where they don't have access. This blocks the access for the owner to certain areas of the internet. It was requested that should any violations be spotted, they should be reported. IX has the tools to deal with and resolve this. This was stated as the most likely way to work together to combat it.
  • A question regarding how to work with trunk allocation was raised. The contact Alexander Illyin was given as an appropriate person to discuss this with.
  • The communication between the Moscow and St. Petersburg exchanges was queried. It was stated that legally they are both branches of Rosniros. Technically, they are currently testing a service which will help the interaction between the two. It is a trial and pricing is yet to be set. Regional Rosniros contact: Irena Vernonina, Director Rosniros.
  • It was asked if there is a physical connectivity where operators can order crossing to the point. Not all operators would like to communicate through an internet exchange, it also takes a week or longer with fibre. There is some crossing available in the data centre in the Korchadov Institute. However Rosniros needs to own the building in order to offer this service. Moscow exchanges nine and ten are not in buildings owned by Rosniros. Rosniros are urgently looking into offering this.

Title: Study on ICT in Russia
Speaker: Joe McNamee, Political Intelligence

This presentation was an overview of a study for the European Commission Telecommunications and the Information Society in Russia, Ukraine and six newly independent states.

Political Intelligence Report (PDF: 1.78MB - opens in new window)

Joe detailed that Political Intelligence is a European research and public affairs consultancy that specialises in the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) sector.

The study presented will help the Commission to have more productive discussions with the relevant countries. Joe described that it establishes basic benchmarks for key information society issues and will allow countries with similar backgrounds to share information. Political Intelligence believes this will create an opportunity for more widespread implementation of best practice.

Joe presented the results of the study which concluded the following points:

There is a similar rapid growth of mobile telephony in all eight countries. In the fixed market, there is a consistent urban/rural divide with limited funds available to build networks in the countryside, with varying policies from government on how to address this problem.

Georgia, Ukraine Armenia and Moldova have independent regulatory authorities while Azerbaijan is in the early stages of setting one up. Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus do not have independent regulatory authorities.

As far as IP networks and Internet access is concerned, there is a considerable degree of development, although progress is very uneven with very different approaches taken in the eight countries.

Questions and comments

  • It was stated that the third report will be online in one month. The final version will be available in January. The speaker will provide the link to the RIPE NCC to link to when it becomes available.
  • Some discussion about country specific statistics followed. It was stated that the broadband information was not easily available to governments for such reports.

Title: WSIS, WGIG and Now What?
Speakers: Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC and Dmitry Burkov, Executive Board Member, RIPE NCC

Title: Internet Governance Coordination Update

Dmitry gave an overview of the Internet Governance debate that dominated the World Summit on the Internet Society. He discussed the results from the Tunis Summit as well as preparations for the Internet Governance Forum that will take place later this year in Athens.

Dmitry also focused on aspects of specific interest to the Russian Internet community.

Questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

Meeting concluded at: 18:25