Hi, On Sun, 15 May 2022 at 18:01, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Those that register high amounts of detail even though they are not > required to do so - what makes you think that they would stop if they > are no longer required to do so?
I think removing the policy mandate to register all infra pa assignments would reduce the potential for some LIRs to misinterpret the intent of the policy, e.g. think they must register loads of /32s. Personally I don’t see this proposal as a silver bullet to resolve all LIR IPv4 registration issues, but a helpful piece in the larger puzzle. Another option could be to more clearly explain what exactly is and is not intended by the policy. And I’m sure the author would appreciate additional constructive suggestions. > In other words: I still find it totally unclear what the underlying > problem statement of this proposal is. Your attempt to do so by > referring to "large amount of objects put into the DB for infrastructure" > didn't make it any clearer. I can’t speak on behalf of the proposal as I’m not the author. I’m only giving context to the DBTF recommendation. > [..] > > > This sounds more like a task for the training department or for the ARCs > > > than for a policy change to me. > > > > The training department and ARCs help enforce policy. > > Help enforce, and plain help LIRs to better understand what is expected > from them, even if not written down. The DBTF seems to want "less detailed > infrastructure objects", though I fail the reasoning for that - but if > that is the goal, it could be done by adding the expected level of detail > to the LIR training. Agree this would also help but unfortunately not all LIR administrators attend training courses. No matter how many tasty cookies are on offer :( > > > Are we no longer aiming for accurate registration, because the DBTF finds > > > that too resource consuming? I'm not sure I understand that line of > > > argument. > > > > I've not seen that being made as an argument by anyone. Data accuracy > > is very high on the list of Data Management Principles: > > Yes. So what is the intended benefit when aiming for a reduction of registry > entries? Improve data accuracy for one. From personal experience of managing multiple LIRs of vastly varying sizes, I found maintaining fewer objects far easier to keep data up-to-date in the RIPE database. But of course that’s a personal anecdote. I would be very interested to hear other people’s real life experiences, opinions and suggestions. Regards, James DBTF On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 6:01 PM Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 04:53:59PM +0200, James Kennedy wrote: > > > assignment-to-self would still be possible, just > > > no more mandatory. > > > > Correct, I believe that's the aim of this proposal. LIRs will no > > longer be obliged by policy to register all their infrastructure > > assignments in the RIPE Database. > > Technically, they have never been obliged to register this in fine > detail ever. Though, some do, and some do not. Setting aside a /24 > and marking this as "infrastructure" has always been good enough > (modulo AW and Infra-AW and all the fine print). > > Those that register high amounts of detail even though they are not > required to do so - what makes you think that they would stop if they > are no longer required to do so? > > > In other words: I still find it totally unclear what the underlying > problem statement of this proposal is. Your attempt to do so by > referring to "large amount of objects put into the DB for infrastructure" > didn't make it any clearer. > > [..] > > > This sounds more like a task for the training department or for the ARCs > > > than for a policy change to me. > > > > The training department and ARCs help enforce policy. > > Help enforce, and plain help LIRs to better understand what is expected > from them, even if not written down. The DBTF seems to want "less detailed > infrastructure objects", though I fail the reasoning for that - but if > that is the goal, it could be done by adding the expected level of detail > to the LIR training. > > > Current policy > > has resulted in considerable PA assignment registration > > inconsistencies by LIRs (see > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767#612). > > Ignoring for the moment that not all LIRs are identical, that still sounds > to me like "training and ARC" - and why would the proposal being discussed > here have an effekt on these inconsistencies? > > [..] > > > Are we no longer aiming for accurate registration, because the DBTF finds > > > that too resource consuming? I'm not sure I understand that line of > > > argument. > > > > I've not seen that being made as an argument by anyone. Data accuracy > > is very high on the list of Data Management Principles: > > Yes. So what is the intended benefit when aiming for a reduction of registry > entries? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
