Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects

Dominic,

I agree completely with Tanja. PI space should not be assigned to End-Users
if they cannot be responsible for it, including the reverse delegation.

Regards,
Tanya Hinman

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
Tanja Heimes
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:52 PM
To: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects


Dominic,

I am sorry but if LIRs are more expertised in using the RIPE DB than
end-users should not receive PI space, aut-num, and maintainer. Owners
of PI space  can update ther AS and PI inetnums and maintainer in the DB
with their authorization method - so why should they not be able to
update their reverse delegations of their PI space?

If RIPE is serving only the RIPE community - than Provider Independent
space should not exist.

Regard,

Tanja Heimes



"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote:
>
>   Hi Dominic,
>
> >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:00:28 +0200
> >To: Tanja Heimes <theimes at de.cw.net>
> >From: Dominic Spratley <dominic at ripe.net>
> >Subject: Re: Creation of Reverse Delegation Objects
> >CC: lir-wg at ripe.net
> >
> >Hi Tanja,
> >
> >There are several reasons why we do not accept requests directly
> >from end-users. Most are based on the fact that the Internet
> >Registry system is hierarchical. This means that we are funded by
> >LIRs to provide services to them, not to end-users.
>
>   From _quite_ a distance, I tend to agree, in principle, but.
>
>   Looking at the details, you are (from my point of view) over-simplifying
>   the situation. E.g. there are probably quite a few holders of
>   "traditional" address space which have a considerably higher clue-level
>   that some LIRs.
>
>   And, there _IS_ (or is this was?) a mandate for the NCC to provide
>   services or functions for the community at large (just have a look at
>   the annual activity descriptions which get agreed in the RIPE Community
>   and ultimately get approved by the members once a year).
>
>   Not all of these activities have to be channeled through (the wait queue
>   for) a particular LIR.
>
>   But my biggest point of concern here is that this is another instance
>   where pretty *fundamental* operational (and policy) changes get
>   implemented unilaterally by the NCC (should I say hostmaster group
>   here?), without discussion, approval, and a look at the consequences and
>   *NOT EVEN* an information being distributed those *AFFECTED*: the LIR
>   community. We are left to find out by chance.
>
> >
> >LIRs have more expertise in dealing with the RIPE Database than
> >End Users. This is the main reason for requiring requests to come
> >from them.
> >
> >Yours sincerely,
> >
> >
> >Dominic Spratley,
> >
> >R.S. Assistant Manager,
> >RIPE NCC
>
>   In my books this is very bad management style!
>
>   Respectfully,
>   Wilfried Woeber, (at.aconet)
>  _________________________________:_____________________________________
>   Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber at 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
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~