RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal

[Dominic Spratley <]

Hi Christian, Sascha,

You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them
for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide
services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list.
We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy.

This new set of forms is intended to reduce the burden on both the LIRs and
the RIPE NCC. By reducing the administrative burden we hope to allow LIRs to
access our services faster and improve the level of service we are able to
offer.

One of the ways we have attempted to reduce the burden on LIRs is by
removing the Current Address Space Usage template in requests for IPv4
space. The template was fairly difficult for LIRs to complete. However,
while the template has been replaced, the principle it represents -
conservation - remains. That is why we ask whether the End Users has address
space that can already meet the needs of this request.
The situation with regard to address space that is being returned has not
changed in these forms. We realise that many enterprises are not fully aware
of the address space they use. To help LIR in these situations we have a
Glimpse index of the database available. It can be found at:

<http://www.ripe.net/db/whois-free.html>

The LIR remains responsible for ensuring that assignments are justified and
that address space that should be returned is returned. This remains the
same. Nonetheless, LIRs must still ensure that the assignments they make are
justified. That means that they need to gather appropriate justification.

We introduced a template asking about the equipment being used by the End
User to help us understand requests faster. We often received requests for
fairly large amounts of address space for vaguely described "network
devices" or "LAN segments". The information provided was not sufficient for
us to evaluate the request. As such the Hostmaster would need to ask the LIR
for additional information. This would delay the request. We hope that the
introduction of this new template will help us evaluate requests more
quickly and improve the level of service we offer you. It is possible to put
"N/A" in the equipment template fields but the Hostmaster might need that
information to understand your request and ask you to supply it. This would
delay things for you.

We understand that it may not always be possible to include useful
information in this template. However, we believe that the template will
have a broadly positive effect on the level of service we can offer.

You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when
requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the
RIPE NCC has not yet made yet 250 IPv6 allocations. Our experience with IPv6
networks is limited and we need network operators to show us how they intend
to use IPv6 address space in their networks. Secondly, the current IPv6
policy does not allow stockpiling of IPv6 address space. One way of
distinguishing a genuine request from one that is intended for stockpiling
reasons is to request a diagram showing how the address space will be used.
It doesn't have to be a a fancy diagram. It's also fine to fax a hand-drawn
diagram instead of sending one by e-mail. When we have more experience with
IPv6 I expect we will make the diagram optional.

Finally, we agree with you that many LIRs are not aware of the difference
between PA and PI address space. This is unfortunate and has several roots:
many LIRs have a large number of staff that change regularly. Also, many
people find the difference between PA and PI rather arcane and difficult to
understand. We try to address the former issue through LIR Training Courses
and by making policy documents clearer to read. We've made updates to all
the RIPE community's policy documents over the last few months. The IPv4
policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for
review by the community, now. It can be found at:

<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv4-policies.html>

We have also taken a look at the wording used to distinguish between PA and
PI. We would like to make the distinction more apparent to the untrained
eye. We have published initial proposals on changes to the status attribute
value names and are co-ordinating with APNIC on this work. We hope to make
it easier for everyone to understand the status of address space.

There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent
from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the
syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be
changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more
responsive to your needs than in the past.

Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request
process to make it easier and faster in the future.
Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get
reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and
the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions.

regards,


Dominic Spratley,
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC