lowering maximum assignment window

Hello,

What about trying to do it this way :
 - RIPE keeps track of all the request,
 - RIPE knows what is the aw of people.

It could be very simple (from my point of view) to decide to lower the
aw of people if they don't make any record corresponding or bigger than
their aw...
For example, xx.abcd has an aw of /19. For one year, they don't make (and
record) any assignment being /19 or larger, then RIPE change their aw
to /20 automagically...
Just have to define what are the trigger to decide to lower the aw, and to
make it larger...

Just my $0.00000000001 worth ;-)

Paul

Dans son message (In his/her message), Neil J. McRae ecrivait (wrote) :
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:08:08 -0000 (GMT) 
>  Stephen Burley <stephenb at uk.uu.net> wrote:
> 
> > Not really. This not an academic arena, people are paying for the best servic
> e
> > they can get and want their connection tomorrow i am not joking. This reminds
> > me of the UK name space requests which had a 3 to 5 day turn around which was
> > unacceptable so nominet was created and took over the UK name space, we now
> > have instant registration. Just an example of why 3 days is not an acceptable
> > delay in installation time i think your comment was a little naive. 
> 
> Stephen you are talking absolute rubbish. For an assignment greater than
> a /21 it is acceptable that this may take longer, any customer
> would understand, if you are saying that you can make UUNET out to
> be better because you can arrange a /19 quicker than we can, then 
> I intend to protest to the RIPE about this, as it is clearly unfair.
> What would you do for a customer that wanted a /18? How is this
> any different to a customer who wants a /19 or a /24 ? You aren't making
> any sense. In anycase, my experience of getting responses from UUNET
> usually takes atleast 5 working days [thats on a good week] 
> [as both a customer and non-customer] so it looks like you have much bigger
> issues to solve before this really impacts on your service ability.
> 
> > I disagree, the lowering of the largers registries aw to a lower size will
> > probably generate just as much work for ripe. Also if you only apply this to
> > the largest aw's then what about the registries with aw of less than /21, the
> y
> > could be making as many mistakes and not applying policies, all registries mu
> st
> > be equaly treated. By rotating the lowering as in Paula's last email then all
> > registries are checked for policy compliance. 
> 
> Its still sound awfully like you just don't want the hassle of having
> to email the ripe about allocations, how many greater than /21
> blocks have you given out? 
> 
> Regards,
> Neil.
> --
> Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking.             C O L T   I N T E R N E T
> neil at COLT.NET  NetBSD-1.3.3 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD 
>  Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A> 
> 
> 
> 

Paul Rolland, rol at oleane.net
France Telecom Oleane/Direction Technique/Directeur
France Telecom Oleane/Technical Direction/Director

--

Please no MIME, I don't read it - Pas de MIME, je ne le lis pas
Please no HTML, I'm not a navigator - Pas d'HTML, je ne suis pas un navigateur

"I hope some day you'll join us, and the world would be as one" - J. Lennon