[routing-wg] Re: New IPv4 block allocated to RIPE NCC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/15/2011 7:38 AM, Andrea Cima wrote:
> The file you mention contains all IP ranges allocated and assigned by
> the RIPE NCC. IP ranges from the new /8(s) will only appear in this list
> once the RIPE NCC starts using it for allocations (and, if applicable,
> for assignments).
> 
> A complete list of allocated and available resources, including the new
> /8(s) are listed here:
> http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/new-ripe-ncc-address-statistics-reports
> 
> and specifically in:
> http://albatross.ripe.net/delegated-extended/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest.bz2

Andrea,

Thank you for this pointer, this is indeed an interesting and helpful
file.  However, I note that it has the same problem as the traditional
delegated prefixes file, ie, it lists the "debogon" prefixes listed in
your announcement (185.0.0.0/16, 185.1.0.0/21, and 185.1.24.0/24) as
available as part of an "available" listing for all of 185.0.0.0/10:

ripencc||ipv4|185.0.0.0|4194304||available

If we were to use this file, we would have the same problem that we have
using the traditional delegated list; we would list your "debogon"
prefixes as bogon, because, according to your records, they are
available, ie unallocated/unassigned, ie bogon.  Do you see the problem
we're running into?  From my perspective, the "debogon" prefixes should
be considered allocated - it's an internal allocation, and a temporary
one, but it's still an allocation.  This is, in fact, how 185.0.0.0/17
is listed in the RIPE WHOIS database:

% Information related to '185.0.0.0 - 185.1.255.255'

inetnum:        185.0.0.0 - 185.1.255.255
netname:        EU-ZZ-20100510
org:            ORG-NCC1-RIPE
descr:          RIPE NCC Test Announce
country:        EU
admin-c:        HU266-RIPE
tech-c:         RISM-RIPE
status:         ALLOCATED PA
mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-RIS-MNT
source:         RIPE # Filtered

But this is not reflected in the delegated-latest file.  Should it not
be there (and in this new experimental file) as an allocation, since
that's what WHOIS says it is?

Best regards,
Tim Wilde

- -- 
Tim Wilde, Senior Software Engineer, Team Cymru, Inc.
twilde at cymru.com | +1-630-230-5433 | http://www.team-cymru.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAk1ayH0ACgkQluRbRini9tg3KwCeNgN73SAWCcPaZvhgDq9Ak790
WXYAn0SgdxRNBPzDkMSNMGXpYlrfg/+W
=pE2t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----