Dear Registries, Please note that this message is send to both the lir-wg and the local-ir mailing lists. We would like all discussion to take place on the lir-wg mailing list only. We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum database object. This is what ripe-185 currently says about the admin-c field: The administrative person specified in the admin-c field must be physically located at the site of the network. The person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network. The technical person specified in the tech-c field may be a network support person located on site, but could also be a consultant that maintains the network for the organisation. In both cases, more than one person can be specified. We are wondering how the admin-c field is used in practice, and whether it is really necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. Usually when something goes wrong with a network, people are meant to try the technical contact to get things fixed. If that person cannot be reached, however, the administrative contact should be somebody responsible for the network who can in an emergency find someone who can take care of the problems. The administrative person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network, but should know who to contact in case of problems. For this purpose it is not strictly necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. We therefore propose a change to the policy- that the administrative contact should be somebody who is responsible for the network, but does not necessarily need to be on-site. Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not? Kind regards, Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not?
I have several times had to contact admin-c people, and generally found that more often than not they had no idea where I had gotten their name from and what they had to do with it. In one case the phone number listed was the "secret emergency mobile phone" of the CEO for a $1B multinational company, but he was very polite about it :-) I generally assume that the admin-c would be able to kick the tech-c around if need be. I also generally assume that issues of legal and/or political substance belongs with the admin-c rather than the tech-c. I've had a couple of cases where a tech-c was way out of bounds (hacking, mail-bombing etc etc), and complaining to the tech-c is unlikely to work in such cases, in both cases the admin-c handled the case. It would be nice if the admin-c represented a management capability (in the legal sense of the concept) for the org/company. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
One problem I've found with setting up customers as admin-c others may have come across - they move! I've found several have left the company, changed email address etc Seldom are we informed of these changes. What is the reasoning for the requirement that the admin-c be physically on site. If it is to be able to 'disconnect' their network from the Net, ie to turn off their router. If so then their isp should be able to do this, either by shutting down a router interface or disabling their dial-up account. I would also wager that quite a few admin-c's if contacted would a. Panic :) b. Try and contact their ISP c. Not be available, see above. As you have probably gathered I am in favour of dropping this on-site requirement for the admin-c. On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:35:22AM +0200, Paula Caslav wrote:
We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum database object.
-- ------------------------------------------------------- P h i l D u f f e n S y s t e m s M a n a g e r t e l +44 (0)845 333 5000 f a x +44 (0)845 333 5001 e - m a i l phil@pavilion.net -------------------------------------------------------
In real Life? I don't think there's any use! Instaid of admin-c I think this should be either nothing or a "last resort-c" in case of trouble.. Almost in all cases I know of, the Admin-c does NOT have a clue of what is going on, what are all thouse templates/objects. The admin-c justs redirects any messages to the first available tech-c. Kind Regards, -Yiannis Samouhos IPNG Group SA. On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Paula Caslav wrote:
Dear Registries,
Please note that this message is send to both the lir-wg and the local-ir mailing lists. We would like all discussion to take place on the lir-wg mailing list only.
We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum database object.
This is what ripe-185 currently says about the admin-c field:
The administrative person specified in the admin-c field must be physically located at the site of the network. The person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network. The technical person specified in the tech-c field may be a network support person located on site, but could also be a consultant that maintains the network for the organisation. In both cases, more than one person can be specified.
We are wondering how the admin-c field is used in practice, and whether it is really necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. Usually when something goes wrong with a network, people are meant to try the technical contact to get things fixed. If that person cannot be reached, however, the administrative contact should be somebody responsible for the network who can in an emergency find someone who can take care of the problems. The administrative person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network, but should know who to contact in case of problems. For this purpose it is not strictly necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. We therefore propose a change to the policy- that the administrative contact should be somebody who is responsible for the network, but does not necessarily need to be on-site.
Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not?
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
Hi, In our experience with admin-c, we always assigned it to the contact person of the customer. We also do not bother to explain what the role of the admin-c is. Some even suggested us to talk to their company's lawyer! So I never bothered asking again. I agree that the admin-c field may not be physically located at the site of the network and also would allow the tech-c and admin-c to be the same person. Regards, Duncan
-----Original Message----- From: owner-local-ir@ripe.net [mailto:owner-local-ir@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Paula Caslav Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 10:35 AM To: lir-wg@ripe.net Cc: local-ir@ripe.net Subject: admin-c in inetnum
Dear Registries,
Please note that this message is send to both the lir-wg and the local-ir mailing lists. We would like all discussion to take place on the lir-wg mailing list only.
We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum database object.
This is what ripe-185 currently says about the admin-c field:
The administrative person specified in the admin-c field must be physically located at the site of the network. The person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network. The technical person specified in the tech-c field may be a network support person located on site, but could also be a consultant that maintains the network for the organisation. In both cases, more than one person can be specified.
We are wondering how the admin-c field is used in practice, and whether it is really necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. Usually when something goes wrong with a network, people are meant to try the technical contact to get things fixed. If that person cannot be reached, however, the administrative contact should be somebody responsible for the network who can in an emergency find someone who can take care of the problems. The administrative person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network, but should know who to contact in case of problems. For this purpose it is not strictly necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. We therefore propose a change to the policy- that the administrative contact should be somebody who is responsible for the network, but does not necessarily need to be on-site.
Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not?
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
0 *H÷ 01 0 +0 *H÷ $ ¬Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've just got a few things to add :) ALL of our customers upto date have "managed services" from us. eg. we supply them an Internet Connection, a Managed router & deal with all their "Internet Problems". Who would be better to become the tech-c & admin-c for them? us perhaps? because we support it - ahh but currently we're not on their site. Also - a few of the customers have "I.T. Support Contracts" - eg. we deal with *all* their "Technical Requirements" eg. If *anything* goes wrong - they call *us*. In the case of those few customers, they have NO technical staff ( or even half technical ) on-site at all. Darren Smith JPCiNET
-----Original Message----- From: owner-local-ir@ripe.net [mailto:owner-local-ir@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Paula Caslav Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 10:35 AM To: lir-wg@ripe.net Cc: local-ir@ripe.net Subject: admin-c in inetnum
Dear Registries,
Please note that this message is send to both the lir-wg and the local-ir mailing lists. We would like all discussion to take place on the lir-wg mailing list only.
We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum database object.
This is what ripe-185 currently says about the admin-c field:
The administrative person specified in the admin-c field must be physically located at the site of the network. The person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network. The technical person specified in the tech-c field may be a network support person located on site, but could also be a consultant that maintains the network for the organisation. In both cases, more than one person can be specified.
We are wondering how the admin-c field is used in practice, and whether it is really necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. Usually when something goes wrong with a network, people are meant to try the technical contact to get things fixed. If that person cannot be reached, however, the administrative contact should be somebody responsible for the network who can in an emergency find someone who can take care of the problems. The administrative person does not have to have technical knowledge of the network, but should know who to contact in case of problems. For this purpose it is not strictly necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. We therefore propose a change to the policy- that the administrative contact should be somebody who is responsible for the network, but does not necessarily need to be on-site.
Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not?
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
&0Ž0 ü|0 *H÷ 0¹1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Durbanville10U Thawte Consulting1)0'U Thawte PF RSA IK 1998.9.16 17:551604U-Thawte Personal Freemail RSA Issuer 1998.9.160 990611111521Z 000610111521Z0A1 0 UThawte Freemail Member1 0 *H÷ darren@jpci.net00 *H÷ 0äe0[=1d};/t ®/Úèýæc#)VrË $ARµ¯œwµIß[<²H$k±,Ãö xŒ V<Þ!àžª/ŽèܬÚN5ûYe}îÛK¯Õ"6ÅX±ì¢¿w ÛxÚ~ÿœþ`uÁGn(#<U£A0?0U ÿ 0 U ÿ00 U #0þ>`k°Ø3ÆÊÆ X°q8µà0 *H÷ AWË lCJ ŒZ+ G1p Kbxq$±ô¹)#ïòÿ©ŠÄrøc¥'¹ »¬\ß<E.îR ÐÁÞª©ÝÜ/Ãk<1Wj',×ü¡Êñ0*=46ç£4Éõ<S{WcÿÙª ZîK©A_${œïA0-0 0 *H÷ 0Ñ1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Cape Town10U Thawte Consulting1(0&U Certification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *H÷ personal-freemail@thawte.com0 960101000000Z 201231235959Z0Ñ1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Cape Town10U Thawte Consulting1(0&U Certification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *H÷ personal-freemail@thawte.com00 *H÷ 0Ôi×Ô°d[qéGØ Q¶êr°^}- {ß %u(t:B,c'{Kï~ ê£Ý¹ÎdÂnD¬|æèMq @8Š£xöù^êÀ^vëÙ£]nz| ¥KU)&Õj»8$jDZڣýyÛåZÄ ¹£00U ÿ0ÿ0 *H÷ Çì~Nøõ¥gb*€ðM`Ðo`Xa¬&»R5\Ï0ûšJ bB#ôºd¬G)ß^Òl`q\¢¬ÜyãçnG µ (èäýôŠÙ|±øÜ_#& sÐÞC©%òæ/ÊþŠ«u ÝQkäøÑÎw¢090¢ 0 *H÷ 0Ñ1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Cape Town10U Thawte Consulting1(0&U Certification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *H÷ personal-freemail@thawte.com0 980916175534Z 000915175534Z0¹1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Durbanville10U Thawte Consulting1)0'U Thawte PF RSA IK 1998.9.16 17:551604U-Thawte Personal Freemail RSA Issuer 1998.9.1600 *H÷ 0Ä¥åÔÔÐ_î!}$¿«k ë kÐ$ îh²¹,Oég ¡ùCA#¹0ªv»óçýÀµ1öŠP&Tò(ë€ °âžÁ2Ð< lOä5Oðv¿OE`óüŽÐɺRê*56<<ä5/£7050U ÿ0ÿ0 U #0rIÂs4ÆUô vr~wôçƲ0 *H÷ ,Ç C>îi\©døÀ+ËP×@ºŠv<@ÜUÁáUy« )ŠÕ áW(>ù»Õß Xª[-3äÝX5vr)œBôZ w_'Û-NÒV»ÞÛ eÞÝSŸŸükÃ"z+aœÂ^zZ1Ü0Ø0Á0¹1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Durbanville10U Thawte Consulting1)0'U Thawte PF RSA IK 1998.9.16 17:551604U-Thawte Personal Freemail RSA Issuer 1998.9.16ü|0 + p0 *H÷ 1 *H÷ 0 *H÷ 1 990616083200Z0# *H÷ 1Fj]6N ®ÓÙA ·ZÎÒº0< *H÷ 1/0-0+0 *H÷ (0+0 *H÷ 0Ò +71Ä0Á0¹1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Durbanville10U Thawte Consulting1)0'U Thawte PF RSA IK 1998.9.16 17:551604U-Thawte Personal Freemail RSA Issuer 1998.9.16ü|0 *H÷ yÛ48Å¡æÑ UZ°\mV#êüYv³ž°Aw ÕV ãÀ)cEaeÊ{5Z0ý=üN ŸªvÀŒSjÀ-ÓxG G²*ç¢Nðß/³bÊ}Ñ£ `ls Lx} Æ å_þvªØ/Õ¬A`]KÏùÅs
In our experience with admin-c, we always assigned it to the contact person of the customer.
Same here. And Tech-c is our NOC team's role contact, which means it never "expires", even if people do leave or change positions within the company (as, for example, is evident from my sig below :-) 10x, Sincerely, \'"'/ Barak Engel ( o o ) ---------------------ooOO-^-oOOo--------------------------- barak@netvision.net.il Business development BE-RIPE BE174 Phone/Fax: +972 48 560600#666/551132 Cell: +972 50 469 341 -----------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Paula Caslav wrote:
Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever had the need to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be on-site or not?
I always use the admin-c the same way as domain-registries use it. It should be somebody from the company that uses the network, and is responsible for the people that use that network. most of the time, this is the director or system administrator of the company, that actualy does the request. So it's more of a "legal responsible person", and somebody that knows that they use the network. I don't think the person should be on-site all the time. after all, what is "on-site" if the network is used on several sites located in different parts of the country. As long as he knows the situation, and can control where the network is used. Met groet, Antoin Verschuren Projectcoordinator Internet Access Eindhoven ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Informatie over zakelijke diensten: http://www.iae.nl/info/ | | Helpdesk Internet Access Eindhoven: http://www.iae.nl/helpdesk/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Antoin Verschuren <antoin@iae.nl> | | Projectcoordinator Internet Access Eindhoven | | E-mail : support@iae.nl | -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (8)
-
Antoin Verschuren -
Barak Engel -
Darren Smith -
dvella＠melitacable.com -
Paula Caslav -
Phil Duffen -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Yiannis Samouhos