Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC. RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand. So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times: 1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001. I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;) 2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam). And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management! 3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators. Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it. They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts. To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked. Lets get this one solved once and for all time!! Regards Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand.
So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In
current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times:
1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management!
3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators.
Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it.
They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit
and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force
For what it is worth, I as a >paying< RIPE member completely agree. RIPE appears to have strayed off track, and the NCC should be the primary role of RIPE - that we after all fund. Other activities seem to have taken over to the detriment of the NCC functions. I am unable to attend the next couple of meetings, but if there is a motion to 'order' the RIPE management to re-evaluate and act on member sentiments like this, then at least three registries I represent (all small) are in favour. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Burley" <stephenb@uk.uu.net> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:20 PM Subject: CAll for action - PLEASE READ the tracking paid
by the NCC this time.
naryreport/sld012.html
This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple the
registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked.
Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
Regards
Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
Hi Stephen et al, I fully support your view and the items you pointed out, and are quite curious on the NCC's reply. /Per On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote:
Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand.
So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times:
1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management!
3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators.
Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it.
They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html
This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked.
Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
Regards
Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
-- Vänligen Per DNS/IP Registry - - - - - - - - - Swedish IP Network - - - - - - - - - Tele2AB/Swipnet e-mail: per@swip.net Box 62 direct: +46 8 5626 4579 164 94 KISTA gsm: +46 704 26 4579 Sweden fax: +46 8 5626 4210
I agree with Stephen, perhaps less time spent on the rediculous week long RIPE meetings and more focus on the registry. I find it hard to believe that the RIPE has not taken stock in the current climate to re-organise its activities. Regards, Neil -- Neil J. McRae - COLT neil@COLT.NET
Hi All, I completely agree with Stephens mail. The long queue time is seriously affecting my workflow. Tanja Heimes Per Lundberg wrote:
Hi Stephen et al,
I fully support your view and the items you pointed out, and are quite curious on the NCC's reply.
/Per
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote:
Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand.
So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times:
1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management!
3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators.
Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it.
They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html
This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked.
Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
Regards
Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
-- Vänligen Per DNS/IP Registry - - - - - - - - - Swedish IP Network - - - - - - - - - Tele2AB/Swipnet e-mail: per@swip.net Box 62 direct: +46 8 5626 4579 164 94 KISTA gsm: +46 704 26 4579 Sweden fax: +46 8 5626 4210
-- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes@de.cw.com Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Per Lundberg wrote:
Hi Stephen et al,
I fully support your view and the items you pointed out, and are quite curious on the NCC's reply.
Agree!!
/Per
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote:
Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand.
So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times:
1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management!
3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators.
Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it.
They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html
This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked.
Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
Regards
Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
-- Mvh /Fredrik ------------------------------------------------------- KTHNOC, KTH, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden +46 8 790 65 17 -------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Besides agreeing for the most part, I specially appreciate and support your point in going further and suggesting a solution. The drawback I can see with your proposal for the audit is, can you imagine an allocation being auto-approved then taken back as a result of a probably very correct audit? I fail to see all the factors contributing to the long queue. It's probably the hostmasters and management themselves who know better, so we could as well try to work with them to a solution. That should include the objective we want to get to, in order to avoid falling again in the same problem. The three days target seems reasonable enough to me at this time (from a LIR p-o-v).
D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html
-- Alfredo Sola Director tecnico
Hi, On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:46:13 +0200, Alfredo Sola <alfredo@intelideas.com> wrote:
I fail to see all the factors contributing to the long queue. It's
Well, let me guess. I looked at http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/staff/hm-staff.html and saw 18 hostmasters there. Then I looked at http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rttqueue/rttwaitqueue.... and saw that last 12 months there was average 189 tickets in the hostmaster queue. So, 189/18 = 10.5. That is, every hostmaster always works with 10.5 requests. Next, on the second page we see that during last 12 months the average request processing time is 9.3 days. Assume that every hostmaster processes his/her requests somehow parallelly or sequentially, and this takes 9.3 days. For one request this is 9.3/10.5 = 0.89 days. I suppose this value is the real average _total_ amount of time that every request requires to be completed. So, if we want our requests to take 3 days, a hostmaster sould have 3/0.89 = 3.37 requests. Under last year's average NCC work load, there should be 189/3.37 = 56 hostmasters. Significant? No more significant than 3 days against 10. Another digits. I've just opened Slides Booklet taken from last LIR training courses and saw that currently NCC has 3100+ LIRs and 99 staff members (slide 10, "Vital Statistics"). This is 31+ LIRs (read: address spaces, ASNs, DB objects, problems, questions etc) to one staff member. How do you find it? Stephen wrote that he doesn't see the lack of staffing but I do. If someone's resources are not enough for his load, he should increase the resources. But looking at that 12-months statistics we see that the load of hostmaster staff varies from season to season. Obviously we should understand that the request processing time is below average in autumn and winter and is above average in spring and summer. Colleagues, let's be patient, good things don't come fast. -- Aleksey A. Perov Postmaster ALP215-RIPE JSC Svyazinform, Penza, Russia e-mail: algardo@sura.ru phone: +7 8412 520215
Hmm, I am not shure I understand your reasoning, I always tought * If the cueue increases there are to few hostmasters, or the hostmasters spend to long time on each request. * If the queue is long but not increasing, increasing the number of hostmasters will bring down the cueue to zero, but Possible fixes: - increase the number of hostmasters - lower the ammount of time spent on each request the first is simple, the second is more complex: - make the hostmasters work faster (better training, faster computers, other incentives) - simplify the procedures to make the work faster - simplify the policy so that the procedures could be simpler - clearify the policy/procedures so that the requests are resolved at first iteration rather than requiring a number of interactions to solve a problem - make the LIR staff sumitt better requests (better training, faster computers, cleverer people)
From looking at this from time to time, I don't think one single factor can solve the problem or bring us out of the situation we are in.
-hph
Reading your mail again I seem to understand your maths, | Next, on the second page we see that during last 12 months the average | request processing time is 9.3 days. Assume that every hostmaster | processes his/her requests somehow parallelly or sequentially, and this | takes 9.3 days. For one request this is 9.3/10.5 = 0.89 days. Now this figure is interesting. I means that the average time spent on a request assuming 80 % efficiency and a 40 hour worrking week leaving 6,4 hours a day for productive work means 5 hours and 41 minutes pr request. Five hours and forty one minutes pr request on average is a fairly substantial figure. I would have assumed no more than 20 minutes as a goal and if we needed a couple iterations to sort things out I would say times 3-4 for the difficult ones were we need to cumunicate by email (or perhaps even by phone...) would leave the average below one hour. I would be very interested in figures from the RIPE NCC telling the true story on this. -hph
Hans Petter, Thank you for your constructive ideas. As announced earlier, we are busy re-writing the IP address policy document. The outcome of this should be a more clear and concise documentation of address policies. In parallel we hope that the simplification of the policies will lead to more simple procedures regarding the evaluation of address requests. Review work on the new IPv4 policy document has been done together with the RIPE community on <ripe185bis@ripe.net>. Tomorrow the final draft will be submitted to the LIR WG mailing list for comment. Regards, Mirjam Kuehne External Relation RIPE NCC "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no> writes: * Hmm, I am not shure I understand your reasoning, I always tought * * If the cueue increases there are to few hostmasters, or the hostmasters * spend to long time on each request. * * If the queue is long but not increasing, increasing the number of * hostmasters will bring down the cueue to zero, but * * Possible fixes: * - increase the number of hostmasters * - lower the ammount of time spent on each request * * the first is simple, * the second is more complex: * * - make the hostmasters work faster (better training, faster computers, othe * r * incentives) * - simplify the procedures to make the work faster * - simplify the policy so that the procedures could be simpler * - clearify the policy/procedures so that the requests are resolved at first * iteration rather than requiring a number of interactions to solve a problem * - make the LIR staff sumitt better requests (better training, faster * computers, cleverer people) * * >From looking at this from time to time, I don't think one single factor ca * n * solve the problem or bring us out of the situation we are in. * * -hph *
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aleksey Perov" <algardo@sura.ru> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:55 PM Subject: Re: CAll for action - PLEASE READ | Hi, | | On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:46:13 +0200, Alfredo Sola <alfredo@intelideas.com> wrote: | | > I fail to see all the factors contributing to the long queue. It's | | Well, let me guess. I looked at | | http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/staff/hm-staff.html | | and saw 18 hostmasters there. Then I looked at | | http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rttqueue/rttwaitqueue. html | | and saw that last 12 months there was average 189 tickets in the | hostmaster queue. So, 189/18 = 10.5. That is, every hostmaster always | works with 10.5 requests. | | Next, on the second page we see that during last 12 months the average | request processing time is 9.3 days. Assume that every hostmaster | processes his/her requests somehow parallelly or sequentially, and this | takes 9.3 days. For one request this is 9.3/10.5 = 0.89 days. I suppose | this value is the real average _total_ amount of time that every request | requires to be completed. So, if we want our requests to take 3 days, | a hostmaster sould have 3/0.89 = 3.37 requests. Under last year's average | NCC work load, there should be 189/3.37 = 56 hostmasters. Significant? | No more significant than 3 days against 10. | | Another digits. I've just opened Slides Booklet taken from last LIR | training courses and saw that currently NCC has 3100+ LIRs and 99 staff | members (slide 10, "Vital Statistics"). This is 31+ LIRs (read: address | spaces, ASNs, DB objects, problems, questions etc) to one staff member. | How do you find it? | | Stephen wrote that he doesn't see the lack of staffing but I do. If | someone's resources are not enough for his load, he should increase the | resources. | | But looking at that 12-months statistics we see that the load of | hostmaster staff varies from season to season. Obviously we should | understand that the request processing time is below average in autumn | and winter and is above average in spring and summer. Colleagues, let's | be patient, good things don't come fast. | | | | | -- | Aleksey A. Perov | Postmaster | ALP215-RIPE | JSC Svyazinform, Penza, Russia | e-mail: algardo@sura.ru | phone: +7 8412 520215 |
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote: One small correction to what I agree with: it should be 3 business day turnaround and not 3 day turnaround. NCC should publish someplace on its page the official days they are closed in Amsterdam so we know what to expect. -Hank
Hi Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone should care about our community. Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our community and you do a finejob...most of the time ;), and this email is in no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the task at hand.
So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when needed to help with increased work loads. Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a week or more. So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the pitiful turnaround times:
1.Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - bad management!
3.Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our New-LIR Co-ordinators.
Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for it.
They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
To summarise: A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid by the NCC this time. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple naryreport/sld012.html
This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been side tracked.
Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
Regards
Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE
Hank Nussbacher
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002, Hank Nussbacher (hank@att.net.il) typed:
One small correction to what I agree with: it should be 3 business day turnaround and not 3 day turnaround. NCC should publish someplace on its page the official days they are closed in Amsterdam so we know what to expect.
They already send out notification mails in advance of office closure... SamSam ----------------------------------------------------------------- sam bradford, hostmaster team leader sam.bradford@demon.net Demon Internet / Thus plc . hostmaster@demon.net Tel: +44-845-272-0666 . . http://www.demon.net/ Fax: +44-20-8371-1285 t h u s http://www.thus.net/
participants (12)
-
Aleksey Perov -
Alfredo Sola -
Fredrik Widell -
Hank Nussbacher -
Hans Petter Holen -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Neil J. McRae -
Per Lundberg -
Peter Galbavy -
Sam Bradford -
Stephen Burley -
Tanja Heimes