December 2002 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name
by Janos Zsako 05 Dec '02

05 Dec '02

> From db-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Thu Dec 5 11:08:46 2002 > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Engin Gunduz wrote: > > We have prepared a proposal to automatically clean-up references > > by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database. > > I like the proposal. Go ahead! Yes, I agree too. > (Yes, it will potentially create lots of "ugly looking" objects - but > the situation right now, where you're not able to delete person objects > because they are locked by a reference-by-name, is much worse) I have one question though: who will be the maintainer of the new "ugly" object created? I have the feeling it could/should be the maintainer of the object that will reference it. Janos

2 1

Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name
by Gert Doering 05 Dec '02

05 Dec '02

Hi, On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Engin Gunduz wrote: > We have prepared a proposal to automatically clean-up references > by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database. I like the proposal. Go ahead! (Yes, it will potentially create lots of "ugly looking" objects - but the situation right now, where you're not able to delete person objects because they are locked by a reference-by-name, is much worse) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
by Hans Petter Holen 04 Dec '02

04 Dec '02

> What is starting to worry me is the >replies indicating that asking these questions would be improper.... While I agree, I think some of the questions that have been raised have been raised as serios critisism of the process in place. While I do think our processes always have room for improvment, I think we would benefit greatly from separation the discussion on - What should the RIPE NCC be doing for its membership, and the right price for this vs - How can we improve the participation in the processes, beeing the AGM as in this case, and even the policy making process in other cases. >If the raised fees in combination with a decreasing number of members >leads to a significant improvement in service I am all for it. That would indeed be excellent ! :-) The good thing now is that we are in an excellent possition do do a tourough discussion on theese items before the 2003 AGM and thus give both the RIPE NCC and the RIPE NCC Association executive board valuable input to both the creation of the 2004 plan and the execution of the 2003 plan. -hph

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] What "Region" is RIPE ?
by Keith Talent 04 Dec '02

04 Dec '02

>What "Region" is RIPE ? And what region are you in, Jim? Have you ever been to a RIPE meeting? Or an ARIN meeting? Or APNIC or LACNIC? Or even ICANN for that matter? Have you ever listened to anything that anyone else has said? Have you ever taken the time to actually find out what the RIRs do? Because it's obvious from your posts that you really haven't got a clue. So why should anyone listen to you? If the IPv4/IPv6 Internet is evil, then get off it. You can go and rule the "IPv8/IPv16" Internet and leave the rest of us alone. --- ********************************* Keith Talent Snr Sys Admin MSCE DART Problem? What problem? ********************************* On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:24:04 Jim Fleming wrote: >What "Region" is RIPE ? > >http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/ > >http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/data/source_add_pre_… >US 704056771 (50.357%) 65945 (58.259%) 5899 (53.317%) >AU 14416063 ( 1.031%) 5894 ( 5.207%) 213 ( 1.925%) >CA 26436124 ( 1.891%) 5313 ( 4.694%) 239 ( 2.160%) >ZA 6533529 ( 0.467%) 2703 ( 2.388%) 35 ( 0.316%) >?? 306555022 (21.926%) 2547 ( 2.250%) 276 ( 2.495%) >DE 51874361 ( 3.710%) 2410 ( 2.129%) 402 ( 3.633%) > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

14 15

RE: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls .
by Chris Hallam 04 Dec '02

04 Dec '02

'I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting.'. I think this proposal makes sense too. Also, is it possible to come up with a better format for expressing such votes/opinions. I think the email based forum is good for getting a general opinion in regard to a particular issue, but in certain cases it may be useful to have an on line voting format just so that the numbers can be recorded without generating distribution list email traffic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:peter.galbavy@knowtion.net] Sent: 03 December 2002 21:04 To: Daniel Karrenberg; Kurt Erik Lindqvist Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. > If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. > This is a feature. So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle. I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members. Peter ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
by Hans Petter Holen 03 Dec '02

03 Dec '02

| Sorry, maybe I do not participate quite as much as I would like, but the fee | for a SMALL registry has increased by more that 50% in a year. I just got | the invoice and had to back track. My budgets are somewhat unbalanced now... | | That is somewhat high a jump isn't it ? What is the average EU inflation | figure ? 4% ? While the increase in the fee for SMALL lirs is indeed 53% from 2002 to 2003 it may be useful to look back some years to get the complete picure: RIPE doc # Small Medium Large Enterprise Signup fee 2003 265 2 750 3 750 5 250 2 750 2 500 2002 237 1 800 2 500 3 400 1 800 2 100 2001 215 2 100 2 950 3 900 2 100 2 100 199 2 400 3 350 4 400 2 400 2 100 1999 188 2 650 3 700 4 900 2 650 2 100 1998 175 2 450 2 400 4 500 2 450 2 000 1997 151 2 200 3 000 4 000 2 200 1 300 1996 143 1 500 4 500 8 500 2 000 1995 134 2 000 6 000 12 000 1 000 1994 84 3 000 6 000 10 000 1 000 1993 84 2 250 4 500 7 500 As you can see from this the fee was actually lowered by 9%, 13% and 14% the 3 previous years, so the fee is no back € 100 above the level it was in 1999. It is still lower than the all time high in 1994. | Can someone from the RIPE management comment on how much money is spent on | non-core (IP management, co-ordination and associated registry activities) ? ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-255.txt Looking at the revenues some of the revenue stream are directly related to some of the activities If I assume Meetings => Coordination, ENUM => new projects, TTM => TTM, Interest => Surplus and adjust the costs of theese before I do a split I get the following split of the fee for the small LIR: Registration 44 % 1 209 Coordination 26 % 726 TTM 3 % 92 New 7 % 182 Admin 12 % 339 Surplus 7 % 202 100 % 2 750 I realise there are several inacuracies in this algoritm but it gives some picture on how the money are spent. It may also be useful to compare with the other registries: RIPE ARIN APNIC LACNIC € $ $ Small 2 750 2 500 2 500 2 500 Medium 3 750 5 000 5 000 5 000 Large 5 250 10 000 10 000 10 000 X-Large 20 000 20 000 In this comparison there are several inaccuracies as I have used the first year fee for ARIN and LACNIC, the renewal fees are slightly lower, and the categories probably differ a bit from region to region. My observation from this picture however is that RIPE charges the small LIRs relatively more that the large LIRs. -hph Med Vennlig Hilsen // Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
by Axel Pawlik 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

At 26 11 2002 09:21 +0100, you wrote: >Perhaps it is possible for you to inform us about steps which are >under way on your side to cut down the expenses? Siegfried, The outstanding "theme" for the RIPE NCC over the past years was to get the service levels right. We have invested a lot of effort and resources into this. We see that these efforts have resulted in shorter, more stable response times. This has given us room to breathe, and tim to plan for real structural changes in the way we interact with our members. This will streamline communication, and actually take a lot of tasks off our hands. The secure web site for members will become the pivotal tool for this. Seeing that demand for our services is still on the rise, despite a much slower growth in membership than expected, and in line with members' comments we take a conservative approach with regard to staffing levels. However, we expect increased efficiency together with the effect LIRs working through the secure web page, to have a positive budgetary impact. When you look at the RIPE NCC budget for the last few years, you will see that after increases of 31%, 27% and 21% for the last three years, we have budgeted for an "inflation correction" of 4% for 2003. This will give us sufficient resources to accomplish our tasks and develop our services as requested. Further, to ensure enduring stability, the 2003 fees will contribute to the reserves, which will have been diminished during the course of 2002. Over the course of 2002 we have kept a close watch on all expense, and certainly continue to do so. regards, Axel

2 1