Re: EUnets - again
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 05:51:53 +0100
To whom it may concern,
Late last Friday Simon Poole of EUnet/CH lodged a serious complaint
against the RIPE NCC which was given wide circulation.
Since I start hearing about this from different directions and I
am unable to find out the exact circulation given to the original
complaint I have to give this message a wider circulation than
probably necessary. If you are a recipient who has not seen or heared about
the original complaint, please accept my apologies and read no further.
To the others I apologise for the lengthy message but such matters
are rarely simple enough to fit into one paragraph.
With kind Regards
After a thorough investigation of the matter I conclude that the
complaint by Simon refenced below is toally unjustified.
The complaint is referring to a telephone conversation which certainly
did not refer to a specific request and was otherwise not substantial
enough to be logged at the NCC which is standard procedure. For more
details about the specific case, see the enclosure.
We have *certainly* not stated that "the request has been dropped"
because -as you know- we do not drop requests as a matter of policy.
We have *certainly* not stated that "EUnet/CH have not paid their bills"
because EUnet/CH has not received any bills from us and it is our policy
not to discus such issues with third parties. There also were
*certainly* no questions about a specific request as we would have then
logged the call in order to return it.
Since the communication concerned was by phone and not substantial
enough to be logged, or for names to be noted on both sides, it is
difficult to reconstruct what has happened in detail. Noone at the NCC
recalls having had the particular conversation. We handle quite a few
such calls per day. The most probable scenario is that the caller asked
about a standard message which we send since February 1st, incorrectly
identified his request as being sent via the *EUnet/CH* local registry
(not the Last Resort registry) and was correctly told that his request
would be processed on a "time permitting" basis because EUnet/CH does
not presently contribute to the NCC funding. Maybe language
difficulties played a part in misunderstanding here.
This case falls into a familiar pattern:
- Consultant starts project, requests address space
- NCC asks for more information / suggests less address space
- nothing happens for several weeks
(more than 2 months in this particular case,
certainly not "roughly two weeks")
- Consultant passes deadline,
resends request (sometimes slightly modified)
- Consultant starts calling NCC on a daily basis
In this situation any excuse for the lack of progess is good enough for
consultant. We have had some very unhappy customers (of consultants)
calling us with the most bizarre stories. The NCC deliberately dropping
requests is one of the more "boring" excuses I have heared in cases like
So I have to conclude that we have *certainly* not made the statements
you complain about.
I find it *very* inappropriate to give such complaints wide circulation
including the TERENA Executive and Secretary General before raising them
with the NCC. I take personal exception with the fact that it was given
such circulation *without even notifying the NCC itself*!. All this
makes me conclude that it is not a genuine complaint, but mud slung in a
I would apreciate if complaints would be raised with us first, before
being given a wide circulation. My staff will be happy to investigate
any problems and as you know I am always available in the unlikely event
you find their response inadequate.
I would also apreciate if you could give this response the same
circulation within EUnet as Simon's original complaint.
With kind Regards
RIPE NCC Manager
Enc: Results of request investigation
Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:31:03 +0100
Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:58:00 +0100
Requested background information from CH Last Resort registry.
No response to date.
Tue, 22 Nov 1994 19:25:52 +0100
Requested further information/justification from consultant.
No reponse to date.
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:46:23 +0100
Received similar (same) request directly by fax from
other consultant (same consultancy company)
without any justification (1 page).
This request does not refer to the original one more than 2 months
earlier *at all*. Therefore it is classified as a new request from an
"individual" not channeled through a registry.
Thu, 02 Feb 1995 14:12:00 +0100
Standard response sent that individual requests are in the
"time permitting" queue.
The requests have been handled correctly: The first one is waiting for
information from the requestor. The second one is waiting in the "time
permitting" queue until it can be processed.
Now that we know that they are probably the same, we will combine them
and continue to process it as coming via the CH Last Resort registry.
> > From: Glenn.Kowack@localhost
> > To: Steve Druck VUSTEVE@localhost
> > Subject: recently uncovered (unpleasant) surprise
> > Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 18:25:27 +0100
> > Steve,
> > I received this mail from Simon Poole, managing director of
> > EUnet-Switzerland:
> > _______
> > From: poole@localhost (Simon Poole)
> > Subject: Re: EUnet and the RIPE NCC....
> > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 18:43:59 +0100 (MET)
> > As you may know we run the registry of last resort for
> > Switzerland, a community service which cost us a lot
> > of money and gives us a tiny bit of PR.
> > Roughly two weeks ago our staff member that handles the
> > registry stuff forwarded a request for a class B to
> > the NCC, the organisation that requested the address
> > is neither a customer or in any other way related to us.
> > Today our staff tried to find out what had happened
> > to the request, and heard the following from the
> > client: the Ripe NCC had decided to drop the request
> > because we (EUnet/CH) had not paid their bills.
> > This is obivously from any perspective outrageous.......
> > Simon
> > _______
> > I am now very concerned. This is unreasonable and entirely
> > outside of the spirit of your and my discussion last week.
> > Last week's announcement was sufficiently dismaying, since
> > it was handed to us as a fait accompli. Now we're confronted
> > with at another nasty surprise, this one a past action. Are
> > there more surprises waiting in the wings? I've got some very
> > very unhappy directors, including at my national networks.
> > What the hell is going on?
> > -Glenn