Hi, I am just attending a seminar in Broad band networks, and met again the claim that -"it is currently very difficult to get IP address space" and as a result of that we have to plan complex network solutions with a combination of private and public addresses. This claim is very different from the one I tend to make: "you get the addresses you need as long as you can provide documentation that you realy need them". personally I think that we have a serious PR problem here: is it so that the rules and regulations have become so strict and complicated that we, the lirs, tell our customers that this is very difficult and you should realy use private addresses, rather than explaining how the procedures and policies realy work ? Is this what we want ? -hph
At 10:27 13/02/2001, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
personally I think that we have a serious PR problem here: is it so that the rules and regulations have become so strict and complicated that we, the lirs, tell our customers that this is very difficult and you should realy use private addresses, rather than explaining how the procedures and policies realy work ?
IMHO, the main problem seems to be clueless salesmen who do not understand RIPEs procedures, and the clueless product managers who will go and design a solution without knowing what procedures they have to follow or restrictions they have when it comes to IP addresses. This leaves the poor hostmaster trying to explain to the company that it can not do what it wants to do and by then it is almost too late.. advertising etc is all done. What may be worth doing is getting 'salesmen' to go to RIPE training courses - as it is these people who talk to customers directly for that signature on the contract. :) What we need to realise is how companies in this industry conduct business nowadays.. (I am not including those companies who have followed the RIPE rules from time immemorial). I have also already spoken to Axel about RIPE maybe looking at an Outreach program (something that Nominet - the .uk not for profit registry - is doing now)... this will be good for PR. The other aspect I have briefly spoken to Axel about and also to Margriet is how to make the new LIR sign up process less administratively heavy. I am not saying that we change the RIPE NCC we have all come to love over the years.. just that we need to be aware of business in this industry and the way it is going. Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta Chairman, CEO and Principal Consultant Cyberstrider Limited www.cyberstrider.net Internet and E-Commerce: Strategy, Consultancy and Solutions
Hi, On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:27:54AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
personally I think that we have a serious PR problem here: is it so that the rules and regulations have become so strict and complicated that we, the lirs, tell our customers that this is very difficult and you should realy use private addresses, rather than explaining how the procedures and policies realy work ?
that "they are urged to force NAT on their customers, as much as possible". This is not how I understood policy ("always consider NAT, but the decision is the customer's - and everybody can get as much addresses as they can show their need for"), so maybe the current policy isn't documented clearly enough... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
This is not how I understood policy ("always consider NAT, but the decision is the customer's - and everybody can get as much addresses as they can show their need for"), so maybe the current policy isn't documented clearly enough...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
In my experience part of the problem is the word "need". Many people assume that "need" implies that there is no alternative solution available, which is a very hard thing to demonstrate. In fact current policy is much easier, since "need" is usually interpreted to be "want to use". For instance, if I have designed a system that will use 200 public addresses, one per website, then I do not have to prove to RIPE that virtual hosting is not an option for me, I just assert that the addresses will be used once allocated. In this case, I may well not "need" the space in the strong sense, but I do "need" it in the weak sense. Perhaps this ambiguity is a significant part of the problem? Matt Clark FDD/Netscalibur
Dear all, I find it useful that you bring this up Hans-Petter. I will not try to provide any replies or solutions at this point in the discussion as I am interested in the input from our members (and others in the community). However, what I can say is that we at the RIPE NCC are very aware of how complicated it is for new LIRs to learn all policies and procedures involved in obtaining IP address space and AS numbers. (And indeed there are quite a few.) We invest a enormous amount of resources in educating these people, correcting them, explaining policies, justifying procedures, referring to documentation etc etc. In fact, this is where you see the bulk of our workload. Although it has always been seen as part of the hostmaster role to educate the LIRs, it is not an easy task with the current dramatic growth of LIRs. We have partly discussed this with the May 17 Taskforce and we are also constantly discussing it internally at the RIPE NCC, trying to find more efficient ways of coping with the workload and the growth. But this if of course only one aspect/consequence of the problem. If the perception is as you describe, then there is a more serious problem and we need to look at other solutions. This may be a PR problem. It is also possible that the policies simply have become too complicated for new members. (Can it be that the policies which are developed by experienced and clueful members of the Internet community is not necessarily easy for newer, less experienced LIRs?) Is the problem possibly a combination of the two? I am very interested in how this is perceived in the membership before trying to give my analysis. Let's first try to define the problem and then continue discussing possible solutions. Kind regards, -- Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net "Gert Doering, Netmaster" <netmaster@space.net> writes: * Hi, * * On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:27:54AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: * > personally I think that we have a serious PR problem here: is it so that t * he * > rules and regulations have become so strict and complicated that we, the * > lirs, tell our customers that this is very difficult and you should realy * > use private addresses, rather than explaining how the procedures and * > policies realy work ? * * that "they are urged to force NAT on their customers, as much as possible". * * This is not how I understood policy ("always consider NAT, but the decision * is the customer's - and everybody can get as much addresses as they can * show their need for"), so maybe the current policy isn't documented clearly * enough... * * Gert Doering * -- NetMaster * -- * SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net * Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 * 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 * * *
Hans Petter Holen wrote:
personally I think that we have a serious PR problem here: is it so that the rules and regulations have become so strict and complicated that we, the lirs, tell our customers that this is very difficult and you should realy use private addresses, rather than explaining how the procedures and policies realy work ?
Is this what we want ?
Well, if they have come up with a successfull solution that uses private address space that fulfills their requirments, then they obviously did not really need public address space in the first place. Therefore you could assume that their application for address space would have been returned to them, so really you just saved your customer some time :) -- Leigh Porter Cable and Wireless
Is this what we want ?
Well, if they have come up with a successfull solution that uses private address space that fulfills their requirments, then they obviously did not really need public address space in the first place. Therefore you could assume that their application for address space would have been returned to them, so really you just saved your customer some time :)
Well, my interpretation is that they have come up with a complex solution with limitations that costs the customers more in consultant fees in order to make the complex addressing structure work. -hph
participants (6)
-
Denesh Bhabuta -
Gert Doering, Netmaster -
Hans Petter Holen -
Leigh Porter -
Matt Clark -
Nurani Nimpuno