[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Roesen wrote:

[...]

> Yep. XXXXXS membership (not "LIR" - there's no registry operation
> involved) with a small basic fee for the essential one-off tasks of
> assigning and maintaining the records for an ASN, an IPv4 PI 
> and an IPv6
> PI block (read: a basic multihomer setup).
> 
> > >> A LIR should know the procedures which should make 
> requests very easy to
> > >> process, at least that is the idea, which lowers load on 
> the RIR's.
> > > 
> > > Should. Please come back with some hard data from NCC to 
> explain to us
> > > that PI holders place a higher workload on NCC staff than 
> any real LIR.
> > > Good luck.
> > 
> > There might not be one, but you can expect it to be this way.
> 
> Sorry, cannot believe that. I was hoping that NCC folks would chime in
> and add some statistics to this point.... any takers?

I'm not sure exactly which statistics you'd like us to provide. I've
attached a graph showing the number of PI prefixes assigned over the
last few years, plotted against the PA prefixes we allocated. However,
as has been stated, outcomes are not the always a good measure of energy
expended. For instance, the assignment window policy means LIRs with PA
allocations often need to submit a number of requests for approval to
make PA assignments. However, the workload in handling these requests
has been reduced in the last couple of years by improved documentation,
training and tools like the PA Wizard on the LIR Portal. 

If you would like a specific set of statistics then please let me know
and we will do our best to provide them for you.

Regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PA -vs- PI over time (Q3 2005).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 166146 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051228/f8ce49c8/attachment.pdf>