2006-07 – Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 53, we were asked to provide statistics showing - how many of the requests to make a PA assignment involve discussion with the requester; and - how much discussion takes place in those requests. We have prepared a set of statistics showing the number of rounds of messages in a ticket. Please note that tickets often include messages that are not directly related to the specific request. For instance, when an LIR is eligible for an additional allocation discussion can also occur on how to register something in the database, or we may remind them about an unpaid invoice. We looked at all the tickets where we approved PA assignments of prefixes up to and including /21 during the last three complete months of July, August and September in 2006. This was a set of 1100 tickets. The attached graph illustrates: - 80% of requests are approved immediately, or following just one exchange - 15% are approved with just two or three messages being exchanged - 4% of tickets involve a significant amount of discussion These figures show that only a small fraction of LIRs need significant assistance with their decision making. We will be able to dedicate significantly more time to this small group of LIRs if the minimum Assignment Window is raised. I hope you find these data useful when considering my proposal. The full table of results: Exchanges Tickets 0 673 1 214 2 118 3 48 4 11 5 20 7 6 8 4 11 4 12 2 An archive (available as a stream) of the RIPE 53 Address Policy WG webcast is available from our web site at: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-53/ap.wmv and my presentation can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ ipv4_min_aw_size.pdf Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
Hi, On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:00:11PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
During the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 53, we were asked to provide statistics showing - how many of the requests to make a PA assignment involve discussion with the requester; and - how much discussion takes place in those requests.
I hope people found these statistics useful and that they emphasise the motivation for the proposal. If anyone has any questions, or if there is a need for additional information, please let me know. I would also love to see more discussion on this list before the end of the discussion period on 29 November. Many thanks, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager
Hi, leo vegoda schrieb:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:00:11PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
During the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 53, we were asked to provide statistics showing - how many of the requests to make a PA assignment involve discussion with the requester; and - how much discussion takes place in those requests.
I hope people found these statistics useful and that they emphasise the motivation for the proposal. If anyone has any questions, or if there is a need for additional information, please let me know. I would also love to see more discussion on this list before the end of the discussion period on 29 November.
well i already commented on 2006-07 in <4523D145.6050506@baycix.de> and since the statistics didn't really change anything, i don't want to repeat myself here (in short: it was a vote in favor of the proposal, for those who count votes :-). I only mentioned some concern about no slow-start mechanism at all, but basically a per-LIR AW doesn't make much sense anyways. Usuallly "older", "bigger" LIRs have quite some "high" AW already, even if they have a high fluctuation of LIR-contacts/hostmasters, too (students ect.) So, personally, the current AW doesn't tell that much about quality of Assignments made anyways - it's quite obsolete from this p.o.v. So, if noone wants to discuss the possibility of a per-LIR-contact-personal-AW (which would be nice in job interviews - "hey, i have a /14 AW, i'm best, hire me!" :-), i'm still in favor of this request, it fits in the reality. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hi,
I only mentioned some concern about no slow-start mechanism at all, but basically a per-LIR AW doesn't make much sense anyways. Usuallly "older", "bigger" LIRs have quite some "high" AW already, even if they have a high fluctuation of LIR-contacts/hostmasters, too (students ect.) So, personally, the current AW doesn't tell that much about quality of Assignments made anyways - it's quite obsolete from this p.o.v.
That is true. In assignment window for new LIR's would make some sense, just to make sure that they don't do anything silly because of a misunderstanding. There is a big chance that nobody in the organisation has experience in running an LIR. They might even still be thinking in classes... (in my experience a lot of people don't read documents until they have to, so they might have ignored CIDR until now) Letting them start (for a short time) with an AW of /25 will probably make them aware :) Just some thoughts.. Sander
participants (3)
-
leo vegoda
-
Sander Steffann
-
Sascha Lenz