Have any of you recently tried to become a new LIR?! I am helping an organization become a LIR and they pointed out many items that I think the RIPE NCC needs to take account of. Here is what they are doing: 1) User goes to www.ripe.net 2) User clicks on 'membership' in left panel 3) User now goes to http://www.ripe.net/membership/ 4) User now clicks on 'become a member' 5) User now on http://www.ripe.net/membership/new-members/index.html 6) User now clicks on "Updated Procedure for Becoming a New RIPE NCC LIR [08 June 2004]" 7) User now on http://www.ripe.net/membership/new-members/new-form-20040608.html 8) User now clicks on "More information on the new LIR procedure can be found here." 9) User now redirected to https://lirportal.ripe.net/newmember/index.html 10) User clicks 'I agree' at bottom 11) User now starts online application at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/newmember/MemberApplication.html 12) User now supplies name and email and clicks next 13) User now is asked for lots of legal info and clicks next 14) user is now asked for lots of billing info and clicks next 15) User is now asked for registry data and clicks next 16) User is now asked for mailing list subscriptions and clicks next 17) User is asked to provide remarks and clicks next 18) User now can submit the form Now imagine a network admin is asked by his/her company to become a LIR. He/she has never worked with RIPE. They follow the process and get to step 13. They stop what they are doing and contact their bosses and lawyers about filling in the legal info. They accumulate the answers after a few phone calls and emails and now move inward to step 14. Now they call the accounting dept and get the necessary info to complete this screen. Hit next. Now they call the head of the IT dept and ask who should be added as a contact person. Hit next. Whoops. Now I need to know who from the IT dept should be getting local-ir and ncc-co emails. Call back IT dept head. Confused yet? RIPE-303 which is now obsolete, but was the last available 'Procedure for becoming a LIR', states in section 2 that one has to sign an official contract with RIPE: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/service-agreement.html (ripe-320). RIPE-320 is *not* obsolete, so I guess one does have to, but the new Lirportal procedure makes no reference to it at all (steps 1-18). Since ripe-303 is obsolete, a new user would normally not read it and therefore would not know about ripe-320. IMHO, the entire new LIR procedure has been made very cumbersome and non-intuitive and has not been reviewed for user friendliness. Previously, with ripe-230, one had all the info needed in one spot and could see very clearly what info and data from within the company is needed to become a LIR. Nowadays, it is a 3 day job just to figure out what the LIR portal will be asking along the way. I think that the RIPE NCC has to revise this entire procedure from the ground up. Regards, Hank Nussbacher
Hello! I just got a new LIR for one of my employer, everything was quick and fine ;) Of course, every work need some experience. LIR is a status giving you an ability to assign IP addresses to users. It is like registrar in domain name system. So if you need to provide that kind of service - you need experienced people can do all technical work, isn't it? I think generally that is not a work of network admin at all. Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR. It is like if you want to have mycoodlomain.ru, you don't really need to become a .ru registrar to register that domain by yourself.
Have any of you recently tried to become a new LIR?! I am helping an organization become a LIR and they pointed out many items that I think the RIPE NCC needs to take account of. Here is what they are doing:
1) User goes to www.ripe.net
2) User clicks on 'membership' in left panel
3) User now goes to http://www.ripe.net/membership/
4) User now clicks on 'become a member'
5) User now on http://www.ripe.net/membership/new-members/index.html
6) User now clicks on "Updated Procedure for Becoming a New RIPE NCC LIR [08 June 2004]"
7) User now on http://www.ripe.net/membership/new-members/new-form-20040608.html
8) User now clicks on "More information on the new LIR procedure can be found here."
9) User now redirected to https://lirportal.ripe.net/newmember/index.html
10) User clicks 'I agree' at bottom
11) User now starts online application at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/newmember/MemberApplication.html
12) User now supplies name and email and clicks next
13) User now is asked for lots of legal info and clicks next
14) user is now asked for lots of billing info and clicks next
15) User is now asked for registry data and clicks next
16) User is now asked for mailing list subscriptions and clicks next
17) User is asked to provide remarks and clicks next
18) User now can submit the form
Now imagine a network admin is asked by his/her company to become a LIR. He/she has never worked with RIPE. They follow the process and get to step 13. They stop what they are doing and contact their bosses and lawyers about filling in the legal info. They accumulate the answers after a few phone calls and emails and now move inward to step 14. Now they call the accounting dept and get the necessary info to complete this screen. Hit next. Now they call the head of the IT dept and ask who should be added as a contact person. Hit next. Whoops. Now I need to know who from the IT dept should be getting local-ir and ncc-co emails. Call back IT dept head.
Confused yet? RIPE-303 which is now obsolete, but was the last available 'Procedure for becoming a LIR', states in section 2 that one has to sign an official contract with RIPE: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/service-agreement.html (ripe-320). RIPE-320 is *not* obsolete, so I guess one does have to, but the new Lirportal procedure makes no reference to it at all (steps 1-18). Since ripe-303 is obsolete, a new user would normally not read it and therefore would not know about ripe-320.
IMHO, the entire new LIR procedure has been made very cumbersome and non-intuitive and has not been reviewed for user friendliness. Previously, with ripe-230, one had all the info needed in one spot and could see very clearly what info and data from within the company is needed to become a LIR. Nowadays, it is a 3 day job just to figure out what the LIR portal will be asking along the way.
I think that the RIPE NCC has to revise this entire procedure from the ground up.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:06:02PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
I just got a new LIR for one of my employer, everything was quick and fine ;)
You're missing Hank's point (which I find very valid, if the process is really like he describes - didn't look at it myself).
Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR.
Unfortunately you do, for IPv6.
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Hm, Fido still exists? ;) Best regards, Daniel (former 2:243/20.6, later 2:2454/95.2) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hi!
You're missing Hank's point (which I find very valid, if the process is really like he describes - didn't look at it myself).
Why your company become a LIR?
Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR. Unfortunately you do, for IPv6.
Why?
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) Hm, Fido still exists? ;)
And even grows up in some regions. And FIDO echoconferences is only reliable place to get answers without tons of spam and flamers ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:55:30PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
You're missing Hank's point (which I find very valid, if the process is really like he describes - didn't look at it myself).
Why your company become a LIR?
I don't understand the sense of your question (aside the fact that "my company" is no LIR anymore). Hank complains about the fact that you don't have an overview of information necessary to complete the application before clicking and answering thru the application web forms. And I can totally understand that.
Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR. Unfortunately you do, for IPv6.
Why?
Because there is no IPv6 PI yet. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hello!
Why your company become a LIR? I don't understand the sense of your question (aside the fact that "my company" is no LIR anymore).
Is it for providing registration services or for IPs?
Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR.
Unfortunately you do, for IPv6. Why? Because there is no IPv6 PI yet.
But can I get the space from other LIR and announce it with my AS (which one I can get same way)? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:23:07PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
Often LIR is misunderstanding with a block of IPs and AS. If you just need that, you don't need to become a LIR.
Unfortunately you do, for IPv6. Why? Because there is no IPv6 PI yet.
But can I get the space from other LIR and announce it with my AS
You can get PA space from a LIR and announce yourself, but this will usually lead to bad routing and in case of the PA-providing LIR going down for whatever routings, partial connectivity loss. So it's not providing the same "quality" like PI. If you're interested in the matter, google for "IPv6 multihoming" and find a large amount of long threads discussing this problem space. :-) Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hello!
You can get PA space from a LIR and announce yourself, but this will usually lead to bad routing and in case of the PA-providing LIR going down for whatever routings, partial connectivity loss. So it's not providing the same "quality" like PI. If you're interested in the matter, google for "IPv6 multihoming" and find a large amount of long threads discussing this problem space. :-)
It may be if you are trying to announce the subnet when all net announced other way. But if LIR gives you an own /32 (like /19 for IPv4) that only you announce it into the Internet with your AS - how it can interact with other net an AS that are does not interact other ways that they are got from one LIR? In addition, I asked a question on LIR courses about what will be with assignments if LIR goes down, for example because of no payments. The answer was "all assignments will be exist". Also LIR can't change or delete objects does not protected by LIR's mntner, so LIR can't delete or change their assignments given to other companies. So I see no reasons to become a LIR if you need only IP/ASNs (even v6), but not registration services, as well as you don't need to become the registrar for registering your corporate domain name (or even few corporate domains). ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:59:10PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Why your company become a LIR?
I don't understand the sense of your question (aside the fact that "my company" is no LIR anymore).
Hank complains about the fact that you don't have an overview of information necessary to complete the application before clicking and answering thru the application web forms. And I can totally understand that.
So, somewhere around step 7, we might add a page showing the 'shoppinglist' to become an LIR: - company registration data - billing data - list of contacts - etc. Grtx, MarcoH
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, MarcoH wrote: That would definitely help. -Hank
So, somewhere around step 7, we might add a page showing the 'shoppinglist' to become an LIR:
- company registration data - billing data - list of contacts - etc.
Grtx,
MarcoH
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
At 02:55 PM 01-06-05 +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
Hi!
You're missing Hank's point (which I find very valid, if the process is really like he describes - didn't look at it myself).
Why your company become a LIR?
In order to get resources directly from RIPE - whether it be ASNs, IPv4s or IPv6 blocks. The company knows what is involved, but when the company is a largish company (5K+), the administrative forms of billing, legal, contacts, etc are not as simple as a 10-30 man company would do it. Having all the information upfront is a prerequistite for applying. -Hank
Hello!
Why your company become a LIR? In order to get resources directly from RIPE - whether it be ASNs, IPv4s or IPv6 blocks.
The company knows what is involved, but when the company is a largish company (5K+), the administrative forms of billing, legal, contacts, etc are not as simple as a 10-30 man company would do it. Having all the information upfront is a prerequistite for applying.
So why not for that large company with a requirements in many ASNs and IPs do not hire the employee that will do that right way and will support LIR and make correct requests and changes in DB? If answer is like "no money" - why not outsource that process or even use other LIR's services? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
At 03:44 PM 01-06-05 +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
The company knows what is involved, but when the company is a largish company (5K+), the administrative forms of billing, legal, contacts, etc are not as simple as a 10-30 man company would do it. Having all the information upfront is a prerequistite for applying.
So why not for that large company with a requirements in many ASNs and IPs do not hire the employee that will do that right way and will support LIR and make correct requests and changes in DB?
They are doing exactly that. But you are missing the entire point of the original email as others have pointed out to you. -Hank
At 1/6/2005 11:34, you wrote:
Have any of you recently tried to become a new LIR?! I am helping an organization become a LIR and they pointed out many items that I think the RIPE NCC needs to take account of. Here is what they are doing:
Hank, all, thanks again for valuable input, Hank. Indeed the process looks "involved" the way you list it, I agree. I'm not sure whether you are aware of the survey that we conducted recently among "new LIRs", to find out how they perceive the whole sign-up process. (Paul Rendek presented this during RIPE 50, the presentation is at... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-services-new-... What you say is certainly reflects some sentiment we heard in the feedback from that survey. We are currently working to fix the issues that were pointed out, to make the process smoother from a user perspective; so you contribution was timely indeed... cheers, Axel
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Axel Pawlik wrote: Thanks for the response. I was actually quite happy with what I found, since it gave me another consulting gig :-) -Hank
What you say is certainly reflects some sentiment we heard in the feedback from that survey. We are currently working to fix the issues that were pointed out, to make the process smoother from a user perspective; so you contribution was timely indeed...
cheers, Axel
Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here. Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16. They never informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be returned once they disconnect from their service (see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should be done, but wasn't in the past). Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer or their usptreams to terminate announcement), they are threatened with lawsuits that deletion of the IPs will cause irrepairable harm to the ex-customer and the fact that the LIR never informed the customer of PA recovery therefore entitles them to keep the IPs - forever - or for however long they wish. I don't want this to be a long thread on the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done. What I am *specifically* looking for is actual lawsuits and court cases that have taken place in the RIPE sphere in this area and what the outcome of those lawsuits were. Thanks, Hank
Hi! It is really good idea to put mnt-routes: into they /16. So customers can't make route objects without permission of /16 owner and their announces will be dropped out. In my neighbourhood if admin-c or tech-c of inetnum write a letter to somebody asking to terminate incorrect announces - they do it. About harm and laws - think about it and make correct agreements with users. Anyway, after agreement is terminated I think IP owner owes nothing to the customer and can use his IPs as he wish.
Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here.
Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16. They never informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be returned once they disconnect from their service (see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should be done, but wasn't in the past).
Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer or their usptreams to terminate announcement), they are threatened with lawsuits that deletion of the IPs will cause irrepairable harm to the ex-customer and the fact that the LIR never informed the customer of PA recovery therefore entitles them to keep the IPs - forever - or for however long they wish.
I don't want this to be a long thread on the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done. What I am *specifically* looking for is actual lawsuits and court cases that have taken place in the RIPE sphere in this area and what the outcome of those lawsuits were.
Thanks, Hank
-- С Уважением, Максим Тульев (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:53 +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here.
Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16. They never informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be returned once they disconnect from their service (see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should be done, but wasn't in the past).
Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer or
Similar things happened here once. But we resolved the matter very easy: The ex-customer claimed we cannot take his IP's back, and we said "they are NOT your IP's, you never paid for them, so you never bought them. they are not even _OUR_ IP's, we borrowed them from IANA through RIPE, and we have the right to use them as long as we fulfill certain requirements. You do not fulfill this requirements anymore, so we are required by IANA to take this IP addresses back from you." End of story. Maybe same thing applies to you also. -- Tiberiu Ungureanu Network Engineer iNES Group SRL - Internet Dept. Tel: +40 21 2322112 / Fax: +40 21 2323461 Public GnuPG Key at http://www.ines.ro/public_keys/tbb.gpg
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here.
My 1st minute feeling would be ncc-services...
Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16. They never informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be returned once they disconnect from their service (see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should be done, but wasn't in the past).
I think we need to be a bit more specific, in particular when this relates to pretty old address blocks. Some of those older allocations are (formally) tagged as PI (typical examples are the relics of the last-resort blocks which in some cases were managed by ISPs), others are tagged as UNSPECIFIED. My reading is that - in the PI case the assignments remain valid as long as the _assignee_ fulfills the _original_ assignment criteria, -for the UNSPECIFIED case it was (and still is) a decision made by the holder of the allocation whether the assignemnts get tagged as PI or PA. E.g. in our case we still use the old UNSPECIFIED block, but we always alert the assignee about the condition that the assignment is only valid as long as they receive connectivity from us. And the assignments get tagged as PA. (With a very few exception where the assignments date back to 1993 and 1994.) Still another case would be PI applications and assignemnts which got submitted by way of an ISP/LIR. I don't think that it would technically make sense in this case to require the assignee to return the addresses upon termination of whatever contract the agreed on (returned to the RIR!!), albeit it would formally be possible, I guess. This would probably be close to "charging for addresses", unless it is a very small amount of maoney as an administrative fee.
Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer or their usptreams to terminate announcement), they are threatened with lawsuits that deletion of the IPs will cause irrepairable harm to the ex-customer and the fact that the LIR never informed the customer of PA recovery therefore entitles them to keep the IPs - forever - or for however long they wish.
I don't want this to be a long thread on the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done. What I am *specifically* looking for is actual lawsuits and court cases that have taken place in the RIPE sphere in this area and what the outcome of those lawsuits were.
Thanks, Hank
Wilfried. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (7)
-
Axel Pawlik -
Daniel Roesen -
Hank Nussbacher -
MarcoH -
Max Tulyev -
Tiberiu Ungureanu -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet