Dominic, I agree completely with Tanja. PI space should not be assigned to End-Users if they cannot be responsible for it, including the reverse delegation. Regards, Tanya Hinman -----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Tanja Heimes Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:52 PM To: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects Dominic, I am sorry but if LIRs are more expertised in using the RIPE DB than end-users should not receive PI space, aut-num, and maintainer. Owners of PI space can update ther AS and PI inetnums and maintainer in the DB with their authorization method - so why should they not be able to update their reverse delegations of their PI space? If RIPE is serving only the RIPE community - than Provider Independent space should not exist. Regard, Tanja Heimes "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:00:28 +0200 To: Tanja Heimes <theimes@de.cw.net> From: Dominic Spratley <dominic@ripe.net> Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects CC: lir-wg@ripe.net
Hi Tanja,
There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
From _quite_ a distance, I tend to agree, in principle, but.
Looking at the details, you are (from my point of view) over-simplifying the situation. E.g. there are probably quite a few holders of "traditional" address space which have a considerably higher clue-level that some LIRs.
And, there _IS_ (or is this was?) a mandate for the NCC to provide services or functions for the community at large (just have a look at the annual activity descriptions which get agreed in the RIPE Community and ultimately get approved by the members once a year).
Not all of these activities have to be channeled through (the wait queue for) a particular LIR.
But my biggest point of concern here is that this is another instance where pretty *fundamental* operational (and policy) changes get implemented unilaterally by the NCC (should I say hostmaster group here?), without discussion, approval, and a look at the consequences and *NOT EVEN* an information being distributed those *AFFECTED*: the LIR community. We are left to find out by chance.
LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come from them.
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Spratley,
R.S. Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC
In my books this is very bad management style!
Respectfully, Wilfried Woeber, (at.aconet) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~