Hi The lack of response worries me to my questions about training i therefore would like to request some changes to a few things. 1. Since the RIPE NCC members are basically funding the education policy, (to which you have a documented policy)it would be in the best interest of the community if we were informed yearly of : a)What courses were suggested by hostmaster and other personel. b)which courses were rejected and on what grounds. c)which courses were completed and any certification recieved. Also what incentives are offered to hostmasters as rewards for furthering there "Internet" knowledge. Our hostmasters are our most valuable asset in the NCC, if we do not look after them and keep the m up to date it is only us that suffer, with this in mind i would like to see the above in place. I would also like to see this information for the last 3 years. 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs. Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 Stephen Burley <stephenb@uk.uu.net> wrote:
2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs.
I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR you would not have to go through the zero assignment window issues again. Stephen - as you have so many interesting ideas and questions perhaps you could post what UUNET offer as incentives to their hostmaster people in terms of the questions that you posed in your mail, this could help educate the NCC into deploying courses that you, and I'm sure others, felt were appropriate. Perhaps you could vounteer to setup a training work group? Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T neil@COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?"
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:11:05AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 Stephen Burley <stephenb@uk.uu.net> wrote:
2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs.
I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR you would not have to go through the zero assignment window issues again.
I really see 'none new LIR's' above. So either you have the feeling a LIR understands what it is about and you give them a reasonable assignment window (/25 or something) or you don't and you keep them on 0. I agree with stephen that something in between doesn't really help. Experienced people is difficult to see at a new LIR, or do you want some 'hostmaster certificate'? A new LIR doesn't have many request mostly and it will soon be clear they understand, so the AW will be raised fast. Regards, Andre
Experienced people is difficult to see at a new LIR, or do you want some 'hostmaster certificate'?
That was my tought too, but the trouble is that the assgnment window is set at registry level not LIR-hostmaster level. But assigning assinment winwows to individual hostmasters would soon get unmanagable. (From the employee side of it it would be neat: if you dont raise my salary I will leave the company, and all the other hostmasters left behind only have a /xxx assignmentwindow)
A new LIR doesn't have many request mostly and it will soon be clear they understand, so the AW will be raised fast.
True. The trouble here will be the length of the vait queue, because all the requests from an experienced hostmaster will of cource be flawless and thus only need one iteration to get aproval :-) -hph
Regarding point number 2 and min. assignment windows. I've been taking care of RIPE issues for the past 4 years. First 2 years with another LIR and for the last 2 with the present LIR. When I was with the first LIR, my min assign. window was a /24. When I changed work, I applied for the company to be a LIR and obviously had a starting min ass of 0. After a number of assignments my the min ass. win was put to /28. I've made numerous number of /29s and /28s together with some /25s. I've also attended the RIPE training course and thus know how important taking care of IP is. To stop the waiting queue of over 1 week, I asked for my assign. window to be increased to a /24 or at least /25. The response I got was that I first have to apply for three of /24s (or above!) for the assign. win to change. The point is that when a new hostmaster comes along, she/he correctly and strickly sticks to RIPE's policies. I feel that the customer/client relationship is lost when this happens. One particular assignment of a /22 and /23 was accepted without any problems with a particular hostmaster because this hostmaster knew that I knew the policies and had previously accepted my other requests. But my last /25 request was handled by a new hostmaster and it took many e-mail and complaints before it was accepted. And to make it worse, I was returning a /23 and renumbering with a /25!!!! Maybe RIPE should not give a min assign. win of /25 as standard. I think that RIPE have to know that the LIRs know their policies well before. RIPE should be aware of the LIRs and have a file indicating possible IP wastage, continous good assignments etc. Do other LIRs experience this?? In the meantime I'm still on an assign. win of /28 :( Regards, Duncan Vella Melita Cable plc
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Stephen Burley Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:55 AM To: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Further to the training questions
Hi The lack of response worries me to my questions about training i therefore would like to request some changes to a few things.
1. Since the RIPE NCC members are basically funding the education policy, (to which you have a documented policy)it would be in the best interest of the community if we were informed yearly of : a)What courses were suggested by hostmaster and other personel. b)which courses were rejected and on what grounds. c)which courses were completed and any certification recieved. Also what incentives are offered to hostmasters as rewards for furthering there "Internet" knowledge.
Our hostmasters are our most valuable asset in the NCC, if we do not look after them and keep the m up to date it is only us that suffer, with this in mind i would like to see the above in place. I would also like to see this information for the last 3 years.
2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs.
Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
Hi, On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200, Duncan Vella wrote:
To stop the waiting queue of over 1 week, I asked for my assign. window to be increased to a /24 or at least /25. The response I got was that I first have to apply for three of /24s (or above!) for the assign. win to change.
Documentation of the policies for AW changes would be a very good thing to have. We have a /24 right now, I asked for an increase to /23 some years ago, was told "you have to successfully apply for a number of large requests", which I have done in the mean time, but the AW stayed the same... Not that I mind too much - most (>95%) of our assignments are /26 or smaller, and only very rarely a larger one than /24 happens, but in that case it would be nice to be able to react more quickly... [..]
And to make it worse, I was returning a /23 and renumbering with a /25!!!!
Now this is something I had my gripes with new RIPE NCC hostmasters as well in the past - returning PI space, requesting the same amount of PA space, and having to send back and forth at least 5 mails... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Not that I mind too much - most (>95%) of our assignments are /26 or smaller, and only very rarely a larger one than /24 happens, but in that case it would be nice to be able to react more quickly...
This is my major concern, the hostmasters are not getting any exposure to larger (larger than /29 /28 /27) requests and when they do so many questions are asked it takes weeks to get an approval. Do not get me wrong i am not having a go at the Hostmasters in general, but there does seem to a real problem in motivation of the Hosmaster team in general, looking at the staff turnover in the last year if i was a manager of that team alarm bells would be ringing. I do not think its the work they have to do (although answering /29 questions all the time must be soul destroying) it seems a fundamental problem of motivation and team spirit. Generaly speaking they are a good bunch and there are some expeirienced hostmasters at RIPE but what are the NCC doing to keep our (RIPE) hostmasters working for us (RIPE)? I do not believe the way to solve the wait que problem is to throw more people at it, you just end up with an unskilled team, with the new comers relying on the "oldtimers" to get them up to speed. We have the makings of a good team the managemnet just need to get the motivation and work flow working for team and not against it. This is what has promted my recent questions the concern for the RIPE communities hostmaster team and wether they are being cared for, because at the end of the day we as ISP's /telco's are the only ones that suffer. After all we are living in a very competative fast moving market which is not slowing down except when we submit an address approval which to me is wrong. The NCC should be keeping up with all trends in technology employment and customer perceptions of a high tech industry with a lumbering giant (the NCC) slowing their connection to the internet down all for a /25 of space. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
Hi,
Do other LIRs experience this??
The waitqueue is indeed very long. My last assignment request (admittedly large) got its first response 9 days after it was sent to a hostmaster from the wait queue.. Next response was 5 days later. Eventually it was approved 16 or 17 days after the initial request. Now, I realise the request wasnt standard, but it's a bit long :) (i dont blame the hostmaster in question btw!). What I wonder is if it takes this long because way too much effort is put into reviewing and replying to very small assignments. Say 75% of the hostmaster capacity is spent on assignments smaller than a /28. This means 8 or so hostmasters are on average working on these small assignments. Total costs for those 8 hostmasters are thus very large (probably more than 500000 Euro). Then I would not find it strange if we would discuss initial assignment windows, and growth in assignment windows in the LIR wg. If we could drop 75%, or hell, even 25% of the hostmaster load by being a little bit less strict in assignment windows (which to me is _not_ equal to wasting IP space), then this should be a subject of discussion. It would be in any commercial organisation :) The number are most likely not correct, but what Id like to see sometime are the actual figures. These numbers are necessary for the LIR wg to decide on policy, because they are, and if not, should be, linked. Numbers of interest are for instance: - amount of hostmasters - amount of tickets done per day - amount of initial tickets - amount of followup tickets - amount of closed tickets - amount of time spent per ticket - average response time per initial ticket - average response time per followup ticket - distribution of size of assignments - time spent on each size of assignment. - average assignment window - average time after change from no assignment window to first assignment window These numbers are not very different from what we ask of our helpdesk employees. I know some of these are already made, but I just mention them for completeness. Things you can then find out are for instance: - if the amount of closed tickets continues to be lower than the amount of new tickets, then we should worry shouldnt we? - if time spent per ticket is X, how much time/effort/money should be put into making sure it is less than X. And this is where Stephen's remarks probably come into the discussion. X could probably be lowered a lot with training. I at least have the impression that not very much effort is put into lowering X, and the effort that is being put in is simply hiring more hostmasters. Which unfortunately increases our bill :) - Will changes in assignment window policy dramatically lower the wait queue and costs? * should initial assignment window be set? * should we increase the assignment window more quickly? * should we base assignment windows on people too? Like UUnet, we have 2 LIRs, with the same hostmasters doing the tickets, one has a /23 assignment window, the other /28 or so. This seems like a quick win situation in lessening the load on the hostmasters. I dont have the answer to all these questions ofcourse, but at first glance I see a lot of room for improvement. - what are the main reasons for followup replies on assignment requests. if some main reasons can be found, we could look at improving this. Say every new request generates 4 followups, and we can lower this to 2 follow ups, we save 40% in email load. Assuming most effort is put into 1 of the 5 replies, you can probably still save 20 to 30% in resources. Saving 20% of hostmaster resources translates directly into a lower bill. Not all of the above issues are things the LIR should discuss (like someone said, it'd be micromanagement). But Id like to see reports on it. And id like to see improvements being carried out. And some of the numbers are imho essential to forming policy. I would gladly bring about a policy to increase assignment windows to LIRs with a 'proven' track record, if that would dramatically lower the wait queue and costs and increases efficiency. And 'proven' could be something to discuss in a LIR wg meeting. Regards, Cor Bosman
Do other LIRs experience this??
The waitqueue is indeed very long. My last assignment request (admittedly large) got its first response 9 days after it was sent to a hostmaster from the wait queue.. Next response was 5 days later. Eventually it was approved 16 or 17 days after the initial request. Now, I realise the request wasnt standard, but it's a bit long :) (i dont blame the hostmaster in question btw!).
From dealing with the opposite problem towards our customers: they have been complaining that it takes to long to get answers and solutions from us. We
An interesting quesion here is how the NCC ticketing system organizes the wait queue and what happens when a request is getting too old (and what is realy too old ?). then introduced a new trouble ticket system, Action Remedy Request, to get better statistics ond what is going os. We have so far seen that a majority of the time on the requests not soleved within 8 hours (which is the internal target we have set for normal requests) is waiting for customer feedback or are unasigned. The trouble then is to get thoose requests in front of the queue so that the customers thinks we are responsive to her request. The real trouble lies with customer satisfaction though, because it seems to be that some customers are dis satisfied with our service if we mail them back with further questions. My personal gut feeling is that this is because they then do not understand the questions mailed back or don't see their relevance. And the strange thing is that if they are adressed back trough a phone call this disatisfaction does not occur. Then they think we are concerned. (Wi did two customer surveys one before we changed the system and one after the new system was introduced, and the overall results got slightly worse :-(, but we got better feedback in some of the areas we focused on. So this is by no means easy or rocket science... Another important thing for us was to introduce something like a trouble manager, when a request was floating around in the system assigned or unassigend to some resouce group for more than a certain time limit, a dedicated person should get notified to take action to bring in the correct expertise. Some of this may be relevant for the RIPE NCC. Maybe just looking about the algorithms for organizing the incomming requests and followups will solve some problems ? -hph
participants (7)
-
Andre Koopal -
Cor Bosman -
dvella＠melitacable.com -
Gert Doering, Netmaster -
Hans Petter Holen -
Neil J. McRae -
Stephen Burley