Classification of services as member-only, public, or something else
All, This announcement appeared on the IPv6 working group mailing list a few weeks back: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:28:37 +0200 As announced in earlier, it is possible for RIPE NCC members to do IPv6-traceroutes from all RIPE Atlas probes to IPv6 destinations. In this new article on RIPE Labs we present a first experimental analysis and a prototype visualisation of the traceroute results: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/visualise-your-ipv6-connectivity-usi... -------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm interested in IPv6, but have no way to access this service since I do not work for an LIR. (To be fair, I might be able to get access by talking to the correct people at the RIPE NCC, but in general this is a closed service.) In the past, I felt like RIPE NCC services tended to be public, unless they were naturally member-oriented. However with this service, I don't see any particular connection with members... except for the fact that they pay for it of course! (An additional minor detail here is that the information comes from RIPE Atlas probes, which do not only sit in LIR networks.) What do other participants in the NCC services working group think about the RIPE NCC providing member-only services? Should there be guidelines about this, or is this something that the RIPE NCC and their members should decide on a case-by-case basis? Cheers, -- Shane
On 30 Jul 2012, at 12:18, Shane Kerr wrote:
What do other participants in the NCC services working group think about the RIPE NCC providing member-only services? Should there be guidelines about this, or is this something that the RIPE NCC and their members should decide on a case-by-case basis?
IMO, there is no easy answer to this Shane. Though I suppose if the NCC membership require (scrutiny of?) specific member-only services, the mechanism for that could be through the General Meetings and/or board elections. The fundamental problem probably has no solution though. RIPE policy is made by an open community which by definition includes those who are not NCC members. Yet the membership pay for those policies to be implemented by the NCC. Those well-intentioned policies can sometimes have unforseen consequences, so regular reviews and impact assessments are needed. This is beginning to happen I think, though it could be made a bit clearer and perhaps be formalised somehow. The difficulty is knowing where the boundaries lie between implementation/operational aspects -- which are probably for the membership and/or NCC management to decide -- and policy considerations which would be for the RIPE community. Personally, I would not make too much of a distinction between NCC services which are member only (apart from co-ordination of numbering resources obviously) and those which are for a wider audience. The trick will be figuring out how to oversee those services: watching out for mission creep, giving NCC staff flexibility (they can't be expected to consult with everyone about everything), NCC services competing with those offered by its members, distorting an emerging market, exit strategies, cost/benefit analysis, etc. This will be a difficult balancing act and I doubt a "one size fits all" approach is viable or even desirable. So to answer your question, I'd say yes. There should be some general guidelines about this which allow things to be decided (handwave, handwave!) on a case-by-case basis. By whom? Disclaimer: Since I don't represent an LIR, anything I have to say about member-only services can be ignored. :-)
participants (2)
-
Jim Reid -
Shane Kerr