[address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dennis Lundström
dennis at gippnet.com
Fri Dec 15 10:45:12 CET 2006
-----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 at baycix.de = > = 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-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]