Question on "Network Number Usage Survey"

> 
>   Hi Bill (and Suzane and the robot :-)!

	Howdy... :)

> >	As far as I can tell, RIPE NCC was never delegated this block.
> 
>   I think that's not *completely* true.
>   At least (a small) part of 192 addresses was allocated in Europe by way
>   of the RIPE-NCC and the Local Internet Registries.
>   

	True, and the contacts for the folks will be getting the can'ed
	email.  
 	This points out a minor problem with the earlier SWIP efforts:
	Taking the first block on your list:

 192.162/16  "Various assignments"

 36% whois 192.162
 RIPE NCC (NETBLK-EUNET-C)       EUNET-C            192.162.0.0 - 192.162.255.0
 Research Institute for Informatics (NET-RO-EARN) RO-EARN          192.162.16.0
 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-1) CCDINET-C5-1            192.162.128.0
 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-2) CCDINET-C5-2            192.162.129.0
 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-3) CCDINET-C5-3            192.162.130.0
 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-4) CCDINET-C5-4            192.162.131.0
 Universidade do Minho (NET-CCDINET-C5-5) CCDINET-C5-5            192.162.132.0

 Thats seven queries.  The last five could/should be consolidated into 
 a cidr entries, like the first one.

   192.167/16	"GARR NIS"	(Italy)

	This one is even worse.... :-(

( 192.168/16	"RIPE NCC - RFC 1597" )

	And this is one simply appears to be a marker

	38% whois 192.168
   IANA (IANA-CBLK-RESERVED)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   Information Sciences Institute
   University of Southern California
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

   Netname: IANA-CBLK1
   Netblock: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.0

> >	was to use the authoritative delegation registry to verify use.
> 
>   Formally, I agree.
> 
>   What hits us here is the fact that we still don't have regular updates
>   performed between the "major" rgistries. 
>   You might even be able to promote that idea...

	Interesting point. This is being hashed out with the folks doing
	routing registries as well. (there are a few more of them :-)
	At least there is a syncronization method (albeit a poor one) 
	in that venue.  Perhaps there should be a strict rule on each IR
	(delegation registry) only recording data that it is authoritative
	for?  We then raise the pointy questions of authority transfer,
	granularity of update, validation of "guardian/maintainer", and
	a host of others.  And life is harder when we have multiple models
	on support of the delegation and announcement registries.

> >	- If the idea of using the same delegation and routing registry 
> >	  appeals to you, you may want to consider how to return those old,
> >	  nasty 192 delegations and use the clean blocks from the RIPE NCC.
> >	  (Here is where PIER might be of help)
> 
>   Wearing my hat as the RIPE Database WG coordinator, 
>   could you please point me to the proper place (and procedures)
>   to participate in that effort(s).
> 
>   Thanks
>   Wilfried.


	Sure.  PIER is an IETF WG.  See http://www.isi.edu:80/div7/pier/
	for more details.

--bill