From beri at EU.net Mon Oct 2 12:37:12 2000 From: beri at EU.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:37:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: This is too much! Message-ID: Folks, If I remember well, we talked about some improvements on the last RIPE Meeting, regarding the request waiting queue length. We then heard the information from RS manager that the waiting queue was 7-10 days long. OK - that's acceptable. However, this: >> This ticket is 25 days old and the oldest ticket in the Wait Queue >> is 26 days old. is seriously bad performance! Hope it will improve soon, though. ;-) By the way, a nice MRTG/RRD graph of waiting queue length weekly and monthly statistics would be really nice to have. Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri at kpnqwest.net <=> beri at EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. ----- From mir at ripe.net Mon Oct 2 15:26:12 2000 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:26:12 +0200 Subject: This is too much! In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:37:12 +0200. Message-ID: <200010021326.PAA23597@birch.ripe.net> Dear Berislav, I understand your frustration. Please be assured that we are doing all we can to improve the situation. Many useful suggestions were made during the RIPE Meeting and together with measures already undertaken we hope that those will improve the situation within an acceptale timeframe. For example, we make an effort to handle straight forward and well formatted requests as quickly as possible and raise assignment windows wherever possible, so that those tickets will not have an unnecessary impact on the wait queue. Therefore we can continue to concentrate on the others. We are also constantly hiring new staff (today 5 new hostmasters have started). So, we seriously hope that the situation will improve soon. Berislav Todorovic writes: * * Folks, * * If I remember well, we talked about some improvements on the last RIPE * Meeting, regarding the request waiting queue length. We then heard the * information from RS manager that the waiting queue was 7-10 days long. * OK - that's acceptable. However, this: * * >> This ticket is 25 days old and the oldest ticket in the Wait Queue * >> is 26 days old. * * is seriously bad performance! Hope it will improve soon, though. ;-) * * By the way, a nice MRTG/RRD graph of waiting queue length weekly and * monthly statistics would be really nice to have. Good suggestion. We are currently working on that and hope to have something online in a couple of days. The graph will show the following: - number of tickets opened - number of tickets closed - length of current wait queue We will send an announcement to the list as soon as the graphs are up. Best Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From beri at EU.net Mon Oct 2 16:01:15 2000 From: beri at EU.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:01:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: This is too much! In-Reply-To: <200010021326.PAA23597@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: Thanks! Wish you success! Cheers, Beri On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: >> >> Dear Berislav, >> >> I understand your frustration. Please be assured that we are doing all >> we can to improve the situation. Many useful suggestions were made >> during the RIPE Meeting and together with measures already undertaken >> we hope that those will improve the situation within an acceptale >> timeframe. >> >> For example, we make an effort to handle straight forward and well >> formatted requests as quickly as possible and raise assignment windows >> wherever possible, so that those tickets will not have an unnecessary >> impact on the wait queue. Therefore we can continue to concentrate on >> the others. >> >> We are also constantly hiring new staff (today 5 new hostmasters have >> started). >> >> So, we seriously hope that the situation will improve soon. >> >> Berislav Todorovic writes: >> * >> * Folks, >> * >> * If I remember well, we talked about some improvements on the last RIPE >> * Meeting, regarding the request waiting queue length. We then heard the >> * information from RS manager that the waiting queue was 7-10 days long. >> * OK - that's acceptable. However, this: >> * >> * >> This ticket is 25 days old and the oldest ticket in the Wait Queue >> * >> is 26 days old. >> * >> * is seriously bad performance! Hope it will improve soon, though. ;-) >> * >> * By the way, a nice MRTG/RRD graph of waiting queue length weekly and >> * monthly statistics would be really nice to have. >> >> Good suggestion. We are currently working on that and hope to have >> something online in a couple of days. The graph will show the following: >> - number of tickets opened >> - number of tickets closed >> - length of current wait queue >> >> We will send an announcement to the list as soon as the graphs are up. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Mirjam Kuehne >> RIPE NCC >> --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri at kpnqwest.net <=> beri at EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. ----- From hph at online.no Mon Oct 2 00:57:28 2000 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:57:28 +0200 Subject: Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 Message-ID: <003a01c02bfa$f96c3310$0700000a@volla> Dear Address Council, As chair of the lir-wg, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html the RIPE open forum where policy is made I am writing you this open letter. The purpose of this note is to update you all on the input gathered from our region. It is an open letter to work as a startingpoint for a broader discussion on the same topics in all of the addressing community. This would provide valuable input to the planned workshop to be held between the AC, the RIRs and ICANN in Brisbane later this year. (This initiative was first suggested in Budapest and later discussed at the AC phone conferences, please refer to the minutes for more information: http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/) At RIPE 37 I called for a special workshop in order to bring those especially interested in ASO matters together with the AC representatives from our region for closer discussion. The announcement of the issues I brought to the meeting can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000701-20001001/msg00150.htm l Some 20-30 people showed up including Address Council members - Sabine Jaume, Wilfried Woeber, and myself. The following rather broad topics lies on the Address Councils table, and will be discussed by the AC, ICANN and the RIRs at a physical AC meeting in Brisbane just after the APNIC meeting in October. This effort is thus an attempt to seek advice from the community before these discussions to satisfy the basic requirements for openness and transparency. 1) What is global policy ? There are several dimensions to this discussion: - replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document - what is the distinction between regional and global policy - do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional policies ? - differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item - what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address policy, or to work on issues as they show up - were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. - are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global addressing policy ? 2) Revising the MOU In the widest sense: are there things in the present MOU that needs more work and needs to be changed ? 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to best address new addressing needs emerging for 4) How to promote ipv6 ? 5) Emerging RIRs How to enable and support the emerging RIRs to establish regional policy processes ? The official minutes from this meeting will be posted shortly, but a brief summary is as follows: * The distinction between regional and global address policy needs to be set * The AC needs to understand and appreciate the differences between each of the regional policies * There is interest in harmonizing the core procedures and requirements of the various Regional Registries with regard to LIRs applying for and obtaining IP address space. * The Address Council should proactive set the agenda for global policy development. * IPv4 address exhaustion - the AC should work with the RIRs and the ICANN IANA to produce comparable statistics on address space consumption. Care should be taken to first produce solid data, then diagnose, and finally seek the proper cure. * The AC should not see it as its role to promote IPv4 over IPv6 or vice versa. * The AC should look further into addressing the concerns that initiated the ad Hoc committee * It was also expressed satisfaction with the ASO annual meeting in Budapest and further interest inntrest in more opportunities to meet and discuss global addressing policy with the address council. It was suggested to me publicly and privately that the AC sould seek to hold an open meeting in conjunction with the ICANN annual meeting later this year. The agenda of such a meeting should consist of not only reporting from the work done by the AC and the ASO but also provide open discussions on addressing issues including the ad Hoc group issues, global policy development and several legacy addressing issues. A well prepared meeting with invited speakers as well as a discusion panel is likely to bring more insight into the issues in front of us. Such a meeting would in my opinion serve as an important step in the ongoing process of seeking global consensus. We have started the discussion regionally at RIPE 37, the ARIN policy meeting and the upcoming APNIC policy meeting. Thereafter the AC, RIRs and ICANN will work further on some issues, present and discuss them at the ICANN annual meeting before seeking final consensus at all the regions mailinglists and upcoming policy meetings. I would by this ask the chair of the address council to bring these suggestions to the address councils next phone conference. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE lir-wg Chair, the open forum where policy is made. From okan.cimen at rumeli.net Tue Oct 3 17:28:33 2000 From: okan.cimen at rumeli.net (Okan Cimen) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:28:33 +0300 Subject: ROUTING Message-ID: <012701c02d4e$9745b1c0$438041d4@rt.net.tr> HI CAN ANYONE GIVE ME DETAILED ROUTING INFORMATION OF A PI INDEPENDENT FIRM ? OKAN From mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com Tue Oct 3 16:20:15 2000 From: mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com (Mark McFadden) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:20:15 -0500 Subject: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 In-Reply-To: <003a01c02bfa$f96c3310$0700000a@volla> Message-ID: Hans Petter wrote (seeking input): >>1) What is global policy ? >> >>There are several dimensions to this discussion: >>- replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document >>- what is the distinction between regional and global policy >>- do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional >>policies ? >>- differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item >>- what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address policy, >>or to work on issues as they show up >>- were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. >>- are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global >>addressing policy ? Here are some observations: - a growing number of issues in addressing policy are global in scope, not regional. The RIRs recognize this and have met and coordinated policy in a variety areas. I think the number of issues that are global in scope are growing and -- after seeing the debates over IPv6 and HTTP 1.1 name based hosting at a couple of RIR meetings -- I think global consistency is going to become crucial. The RIRs can be one place for people to have input on global addressing issues, but it shouldn't be the only one. - I think that RFC 2050 should be updated or replaced with a document that clearly identifies allocation policies and the exceptional cases (net-24 and the like) that face both established and emerging registries. That ought to be a work item for a "working group" in the ASO. I'd be willing to be a contributor to that effort. - I like to see someone propose a definition of what issues are really regional issues. After all the pool of IPv4/IPv6 addresses is truly a global set of addresses. It seems to me that they should be managed with a consistent set of rules regardless of whether your are in Aruba or Zambia. So, what are the regional issues? I understand that there are administrative issues that distinguish each of the registries -- that makes sense. But why would there be differences in IP address policy? - On global policy, I'd like to see the AC's workflow diagram published as a draft document on http://www.aso.icann.org with an opportunity to comment. Specifically, I'd like to see the mechanisms that are there that support meaningful public and industry participation in addressing policy development. Where in the workflow diagram is the opportunity for interested companies and engineers to raise addressing issues outside the context of the RIRs? It's just my opinion, but that's what you asked for.... mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562 From mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com Tue Oct 3 16:42:20 2000 From: mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com (Mark McFadden) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:42:20 -0500 Subject: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 In-Reply-To: <003a01c02bfa$f96c3310$0700000a@volla> Message-ID: Hans Petter said: >> 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to >> best address new addressing needs emerging for I'll respond on the Ad Hoc Committee in a moment. At the ARIN meeting this week Brian Carpenter presented a slightly revised version of the presentation that Bob Hinden made at RIPE in September. The discussion afterward was lively but what was clear was that the IAB/IESG was doing a good job of education during their road shows, but they weren't completely convincing their audience. I'd observe that: - many people have done some estimates of when IPv4 exhaustion takes place, with many different results (depending on the algorithm used); nobody seems to agree and it seems to affect the debate on IPv6 - many people have ideas about what pressures are emerging on addressing -- with people already asking for conservation of IPv6 space because of fears about what might happen in the future; - not everyone agrees that you can successfully predict the future -- and especially the future impact of technologies that are yet to be deployed or even imagined; and, - some believe that IPv6 allocation should reflect a "worst case" analysis of possible futures. Whether the Ad Hoc committee continues past Los Angeles or not, I think the AC should be prepared to deal with these issues. The IESG/IAB road show has been helpful in bringing part of the discussion to some constituencies, but the discussion should be larger than simply the size of allocations in IPv6 to a specific class of users. The AC should take this effort on - a "working group" if you will - that meaningfully involved the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, ISPs and anyone else in the industry that has a stake in the pressures that are coming on addressing. This is a natural group to sort through the various estimates on IPv4 exhaustion (I sat at dinner and heard three different representatives of three different companies give three different estimates -- and swear that they were correct) and then act on the Ad Hoc Committee's report of "drivers" of pressure on address policy. That should be the group that takes the lead on the IPv6 discussion -- gathering input and making a recommendation to the AC/ASO and RIRs. At its Brisbane meeting I'd like to see the Address Council charter such a working group and have it work in coordination with the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, and ISPs. mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562 From bon at ripn.net Fri Oct 13 13:34:49 2000 From: bon at ripn.net (Oleg N. Bondarev) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:34:49 +0400 (MSD) Subject: national allocations Message-ID: Dear all, i'd like to know - does anybody use allocations list submitted by RIPE NCC in order to automatically extract info about national allocations ? For instance, when we need to define whether current IP-address belongs to RU provider we ask whois | grep "country: *RU" (i guess country field with correct country code presents in all of inetnums) however sometimes it's necessary to know all of IP-addresses that were allocated to national providers, so we've to get allocation file, find only RU entries and furher update our local database. Is there are any ways to know that RU LIR has been added to file ? With respect, --- RIPN Registry center ----- From joao at ripe.net Tue Oct 17 15:00:17 2000 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:00:17 +0200 Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Oleg, please have a look at the file "allocations" located at ftp://ftp.ripe.net//ripe/local-ir/ I think it contains the information you want and it is public. regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC At 15:34 +0400 13/10/00, Oleg N. Bondarev wrote: >Dear all, > >i'd like to know - does anybody use allocations list >submitted by RIPE NCC in order to automatically extract info >about national allocations ? >For instance, when we need to define whether >current IP-address belongs to RU provider we ask >whois | grep "country: *RU" >(i guess country field with correct country code >presents in all of inetnums) >however sometimes it's necessary to know all of IP-addresses >that were allocated to national providers, so we've to get >allocation file, find only RU entries and furher update our >local database. Is there are any ways to know that RU LIR >has been added to file ? > > >With respect, >--- >RIPN Registry center >----- From gajda at man.poznan.pl Thu Oct 19 14:10:05 2000 From: gajda at man.poznan.pl (Bartosz Gajda) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:10:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello! I have similar problem: is it possible to extract list of AS numbers for specific country or list of all AS numbers sorted by country? And without writing to much code in perl, if possible ;) Regards, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bartosz Gajda | Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center email: gajda at man.poznan.pl | ul. Noskowskiego 10 http://www.man.poznan.pl | 61-704 Poznan, POLAND tel: (+48 61) 858 - 2072, 858 - 2015 fax: (+48 61) 8525 - 954 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > Dear Oleg, > > please have a look at the file "allocations" located at > ftp://ftp.ripe.net//ripe/local-ir/ > > I think it contains the information you want and it is public. > > regards, > Joao Damas > RIPE NCC > > At 15:34 +0400 13/10/00, Oleg N. Bondarev wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >i'd like to know - does anybody use allocations list > >submitted by RIPE NCC in order to automatically extract info > >about national allocations ? > >For instance, when we need to define whether > >current IP-address belongs to RU provider we ask > >whois | grep "country: *RU" > >(i guess country field with correct country code > >presents in all of inetnums) > >however sometimes it's necessary to know all of IP-addresses > >that were allocated to national providers, so we've to get > >allocation file, find only RU entries and furher update our > >local database. Is there are any ways to know that RU LIR > >has been added to file ? > > > > > >With respect, > >--- > >RIPN Registry center > >----- > From beri at EU.net Thu Oct 19 14:22:02 2000 From: beri at EU.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:22:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bartosz Gajda wrote: >> I have similar problem: is it possible to extract list of AS numbers for >> specific country or list of all AS numbers sorted by country? >> And without writing to much code in perl, if possible ;) The problem is that IPv4 address space and AS numbers don't carry any country information. Some clues about the region can be made, still it doesn't guarantee that an IP address or AS number assigned by RIPE NCC won't be used within US, while ARIN addresses might be used in Europe ... Furthermore, one AS can span among more than one single country. So - if you're looking for a certain method, the answer is: no, there is NO way to precisely define the country element of IP/AS numbers. Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri at kpnqwest.net <=> beri at EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. ----- From gajda at man.poznan.pl Thu Oct 19 15:25:38 2000 From: gajda at man.poznan.pl (Bartosz Gajda) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:25:38 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The problem is that IPv4 address space and AS numbers don't carry any country > information. Some clues about the region can be made, still it doesn't > guarantee that an IP address or AS number assigned by RIPE NCC won't be used > within US, while ARIN addresses might be used in Europe ... But inetnum has "country" field which is mandatory and if I look for related "route" object, it has "origin" field with AS number. It is possible to make script working in this way, but I hoped, that RIPE has such list with AS numbers. Regards, Bart > > Furthermore, one AS can span among more than one single country. > > So - if you're looking for a certain method, the answer is: no, there is NO > way to precisely define the country element of IP/AS numbers. > > Regards, > Beri > > --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- > ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- > ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- > --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- > -- Email: beri at kpnqwest.net <=> beri at EU.net -- > --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- > ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ > ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. ----- > From beri at EU.net Thu Oct 19 15:38:12 2000 From: beri at EU.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bartosz Gajda wrote: >> But inetnum has "country" field which is mandatory and if I look for >> related "route" object, it has "origin" field with AS number. OK - but again: if you have an IP network used for router point-to-points and loopbacks and your network spreads worldwide - what's the usefulness of the country information in inetnum object? Same thing (or even more difficult) are AS numbers - they can spread across few dozens of countries. Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri at kpnqwest.net <=> beri at EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. ----- From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Oct 20 17:28:47 2000 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:28:47 MET-DST Subject: national allocations Message-ID: <009F1E43.AAB5F490.2@cc.univie.ac.at> =>> But inetnum has "country" field which is mandatory and if I look for =>> related "route" object, it has "origin" field with AS number. My guess would be that in 9 out of 10 cases (or in 199 out of 200?), the concept of "country" in the Internet is not useful at all. Even if you manage to "properly" look at the geographical aspect, in general it doesn't tell you anything reasonable about connectivity, user community, and the like. Maybe the only exception is the exchange of a set of packets, from a legal point of view, when you are able to positively verify (by some magic) that source, destination and intermediate hops stay within national boundaries. -WW From afrench at via-net-works.com Fri Oct 20 18:25:03 2000 From: afrench at via-net-works.com (Alex French) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:25:03 +0100 Subject: national allocations In-Reply-To: <009F1E43.AAB5F490.2@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001020172323.02f7e838@212.169.63.1> At 06:28 PM 20/10/2000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > My guess would be that in 9 out of 10 cases (or in 199 out of 200?), > the concept of "country" in the Internet is not useful at all. > > Even if you manage to "properly" look at the geographical aspect, in > general it doesn't tell you anything reasonable about connectivity, user > community, and the like. A few years ago maybe, but the prevalence of IXs would suggest to me that if you know the geographical location of a host, you can rely on it for a rough estimates. -- Alex French Consultant, Technical Services E: afrench at via-net-works.com VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. T: +353 86 818 8118 From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Oct 25 16:59:45 2000 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:59:45 +0200 Subject: Waitqueue Update Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20001025164709.05581190@localhost> Dear LIR-WG list members, The RIPE NCC would like to update you on the progress with regards to the Registration Services wait queue. The possibilities for action as well as consequences have been discussed extensively. Below, please find an overview of actions taken in the last few weeks following the RIPE 37 meeting: - We are giving priority to correctly filled out requests - We are raising Assignment Windows very pro-actively - (this was applied some time prior to RIPE 37 and is now showing results) - We are less strict with documentation being totally complete - We are stricter with members who have not read the documentation - We are dispatching incoming requests more efficiently, balancing the level of experience of hostmasters with the complexity of the requests. Apart from the immediate dealings with the wait queue, we are continuing to hire hostmaster staff. What are the results of the efforts thus far? During week 41 we experienced a peak in the number of tickets in the queue reaching a total of 842. At this time the wait queue in days was fluctuating between 24 - 27 days. Two weeks later, having changed our working pattern as with the actions mentioned above, we are down to 124 tickets in the queue and the wait queue time has dropped to 6 calender days. So, is this the time to rejoice and celebrate? We do not think so. While these are good results and due to the unrelenting effort of my collegues in the Registration Services (including Nurani, Joao and those in other areas supporting them) this is not enough. Naturally, we would like to get the queue down even further, two days is the goal. Equally important is the need to carefully examine what effects this way of working has. Are you getting the service you require? Is the RIPE NCC delivering a service quality that we can be proud of, and can this be sustained? These will be the points we will keep in mind for the coming weeks. Another update can be expected in four weeks time. Regards from windswept Amsterdam, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From heidrich at mail.deltav.hu Thu Oct 26 10:32:27 2000 From: heidrich at mail.deltav.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:32:27 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer Message-ID: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> Hi! Is there any simple way to rename a maintainter object? I'm afraid, I can not simply change the name... Alternatively, can I select all the objects with MNT-BY= ?? How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? -- ( Y ) (o-o) www.deltav.hu/~heidrich (")_(")o heidrich at mail.deltav.hu X-NCC-RegID: hu.deltav From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu Oct 26 10:52:11 2000 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:52:11 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer Message-ID: <009F22C3.41E80B90.1@cc.univie.ac.at> >Alternatively, can I select all the objects with MNT-BY= ?? whois -ri mnt-by >How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? I'd register the new one, move the objects under the control of the new one, double-check, and then delete the old one. Regards, Wilfried. From heidrich at mail.deltav.hu Thu Oct 26 11:12:51 2000 From: heidrich at mail.deltav.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:12:51 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer References: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> <20001026103534.K1037@Space.Net> Message-ID: <39F7F593.AFC4F3FD@mail.deltav.hu> "Gert Doering, Netmaster" wrote: > whois -r -i mnt-by > That's perfect, thanks!! Thank all the others who gave this solution as well!! > > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? > > As you change any other attributes (like phone: etc.) > Which password to specify in this case?? -- ( Y ) (o-o) www.deltav.hu/~heidrich (")_(")o heidrich at mail.deltav.hu X-NCC-RegID: hu.deltav From heidrich at mail.deltav.hu Thu Oct 26 11:15:00 2000 From: heidrich at mail.deltav.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:15:00 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer References: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> <20001026104831.B23920@snickers.netplace.de> Message-ID: <39F7F614.B9A03E5C@mail.deltav.hu> Marcus Rist wrote: > > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? > > Simply send an Update for the object containing the new mnt-by and > authorize for the old one. > Thank you (and possibly others), it should be working for me!! -- ( Y ) (o-o) www.deltav.hu/~heidrich (")_(")o heidrich at mail.deltav.hu X-NCC-RegID: hu.deltav From netmaster at space.net Thu Oct 26 10:35:35 2000 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:35:35 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer In-Reply-To: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu>; from heidrich@mail.deltav.hu on Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:32:27AM +0200 References: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> Message-ID: <20001026103534.K1037@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:32:27AM +0200, Heidrich Attila wrote: > Is there any simple way to rename a maintainter object? I'm afraid, I > can not simply change the name... No - you have to create a new one, change all the objects, then delete the old maintainer. > Alternatively, can I select all the objects with MNT-BY= ?? whois -r -i mnt-by > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? As you change any other attributes (like phone: etc.) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From marcus at netplace.de Thu Oct 26 10:48:31 2000 From: marcus at netplace.de (Marcus Rist) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:48:31 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer In-Reply-To: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu>; from heidrich@mail.deltav.hu on Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:32:27AM +0200 References: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> Message-ID: <20001026104831.B23920@snickers.netplace.de> Hi, You read the documents in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/database.html ? Heidrich Attila wrote To LIR Mailing List: > Is there any simple way to rename a maintainter object? I'm afraid, I > can not simply change the name... I don't think so, but maybe anyone else knows a solution? > Alternatively, can I select all the objects with MNT-BY= ?? whois [-r] -h whois.ripe.net -i mnt-by > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? Simply send an Update for the object containing the new mnt-by and authorize for the old one. hth -Marcus -- Marcus Rist email: marcus at netplace.de netplace Telematic GmbH fon: +49 89 551805-23 http://www.netplace.de/ fax: +49 89 551805-24 From daniele at ripe.net Thu Oct 26 10:48:33 2000 From: daniele at ripe.net (Daniele Arena) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:48:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RENAME a maintainer In-Reply-To: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> Message-ID: Dear Heidrich Attila, There is a specific RIPE NCC mailbox for questions and issues related to the RIPE Database; it is called . You should send a mail to that mailbox, explaining your problem, and you will get support from the RIPE Database Administration. Regards, Daniele. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniele Arena RIPE NCC - Database Group phone : +31 20 535 4444 Singel 258 fax : +31 20 535 4445 1016AB Amsterdam e-mail : daniele at ripe.net The Netherlands On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Heidrich Attila wrote: > Hi! > > Is there any simple way to rename a maintainter object? I'm afraid, I > can not simply change the name... > > Alternatively, can I select all the objects with MNT-BY= ?? > > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? > -- > ( Y ) > (o-o) www.deltav.hu/~heidrich > (")_(")o heidrich at mail.deltav.hu > X-NCC-RegID: hu.deltav > From netmaster at space.net Thu Oct 26 11:14:21 2000 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:14:21 +0200 Subject: RENAME a maintainer In-Reply-To: <39F7F593.AFC4F3FD@mail.deltav.hu>; from heidrich@mail.deltav.hu on Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:12:51AM +0200 References: <39F7EC1B.FC8478E@mail.deltav.hu> <20001026103534.K1037@Space.Net> <39F7F593.AFC4F3FD@mail.deltav.hu> Message-ID: <20001026111421.L1037@Space.Net> hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:12:51AM +0200, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > How can I change the MNT-BY attribute? Delete, and set up the new one? > > > > As you change any other attributes (like phone: etc.) > > Which password to specify in this case?? Hmmm, good question. I'd use the same password for old and new maintainer, and change it on the new maintainer later. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From carsten.schiefner at tcpip-gmbh.de Thu Oct 26 18:36:56 2000 From: carsten.schiefner at tcpip-gmbh.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:36:56 +0200 Subject: Waitqueue Update References: <5.0.0.25.2.20001025164709.05581190@localhost> Message-ID: <39F85DA8.9EB8494A@tcpip-gmbh.de> Axel and all others @ RIPE NCC, thank you very much for your efforts which have obviously been under- taken in the right direction by now showing the first positive results. Best regards, -C. Axel Pawlik wrote: > > Dear LIR-WG list members, > > The RIPE NCC would like to update you on the progress with > regards to the Registration Services wait queue. [...] -- Carsten Schiefner mailto:carsten.schiefner at tcpip-gmbh.de TCP/IP GmbH, Berlin (Germany) http://www.tcpip-gmbh.de Phone: +49.30.443366-0 Fax: +49.30.443366-15 Mobile: +49.172.5425797 TCP/IP GmbH runs the Contrib.Net backbone http://www.contrib.net ======================================================================