Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)

[Dennis Lundström dennis@localhost]

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

I totally agree there. We need to keep it simple.
From my own experience, I say most of us do other things daily that  
just work with assigning ip-addresses.
A complex and byrocratic policy could have the opposite effect, at  
least from a management point of view.
While auditing performance per employee, this might stir up bad blood  
If we are spending more time adapting to policy than doing the actual  
work :-)
For those worried about AW size, my suggestion is to take an active  
roll. If you have new staff, that is not experienced enough.
Contacting RIPE-NCC, and asking for a lower AW is always a good option.

Best regards.

- --Dennis Lundström
  GippNET AB


On Dec 14, 2006, at 18:23 , Sascha Lenz wrote:

> Hay,
>
> Andy Davidson schrieb:
> > On 13 Dec 2006, at 16:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > > Several people raised concerns that new LIRs may not have  
> > > sufficient experience to make good decisions with a /21 AW.
> > To appease those worriers, the policy could say that the AW growth  
> > from 0 to /21 is only permitted if the LIR has at least one admin- 
> > c who has been to RIPE LIR training ?
> hm, i don't really see why making the policy more complex is helping.
> My point from my former post(s) keep standing... just pass the  
> proposal so we can focus on the other more important ones :-)
> As long as we don't start with per-LIR-contact AWs instead of per- 
> LIR AWs, i rather prefer it simple than complicated. Because it  
> doesn't make that much sense at all to have an AW per LIR if there  
> are many different LIR contacts processing the requests anyways.   
> Some LIRs might do internal trainings or send their staff to LIR  
> trainings, but not all.
> ==> I still support the request, actually rather the original draft  
> than the updated one, but i'm fine with a 6month slow-start  
> mechanism. Just don't think it makes much sense but might prevent  
> at least some mistakes by new LIRs, yes. Mistakes by new LIR staff  
> in any other LIR with a high AW are still not accounted for though.  
> But do we want RIPE to look at a LIRs work that much? I guess not.
> --
> ====================================================================== 
> ==
> = Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE           
> slz@localhost         =
> = Network  
> Operations                                                   =
> = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand  
> *  =
> ====================================================================== 
> ==
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFgm6rsqJZaeZjsn8RAly2AJ9ea6QoI7791iMXh1b/DsNAT/TNigCeNB4v
9HevRALQyvJwC6K0WK+lmUs=
=oH4B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----