On or about January 5, 2021 I received an end-user allocation request for a "direct" /24 allocation "for working with ARDEN and IRLP for VPN and link setups" which I approved and submitted via portal.ampr.org. It didn't create the allocation I assigned to the network but was "referred to BGP coordinator". So far, there has been no action and no response to the original request nor a follow up to my request via the "contact us" link on the black hole that is the ampr.org portal. What is the status of the system and how are coordinators expected to act in this regard? I try to give my users timely, responsive service but it's very frustrating when I can't even track a submission or review submission histories. The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
ke6qh
Hi Geoff,
Once a coordinator has assigned an allocation that the end user wishes to announce directly (i.e. over BGP) then the request is redirected to me for the BGP approval. Depending on the unique circumstances of each request, this can take a few days to several weeks.
Whilst I can’t discuss individual cases on an open mailing list due to privacy concerns, I can see that you only have one active BGP request at the moment and I can tell you that in this case the end user and I have in fact been happily exchanging emails regarding the request, the last exchange being about 8 hours ago.
If you want to discuss the specifics, please feel free to contact me off list.
Kind Regards, Chris - G1FEF
On 26 Jan 2021, at 17:08, Geoff Joy via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
On or about January 5, 2021 I received an end-user allocation request for a "direct" /24 allocation "for working with ARDEN and IRLP for VPN and link setups" which I approved and submitted via portal.ampr.org. It didn't create the allocation I assigned to the network but was "referred to BGP coordinator". So far, there has been no action and no response to the original request nor a follow up to my request via the "contact us" link on the black hole that is the ampr.org portal. What is the status of the system and how are coordinators expected to act in this regard? I try to give my users timely, responsive service but it's very frustrating when I can't even track a submission or review submission histories. The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
ke6qh _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
... in this case the end user and I have in fact been happily exchanging emails regarding the request, the last exchange being about 8 hours ago.
On 26 Jan 2021, at 17:08, Geoff Joy via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
As a casual observe. I am puzzled.
Whilst I can't discuss individual cases on an open mailing list due to privacy concerns,
It's HAM, and ... like operating modes and frequency band allocation, public *coordination* is required, otherwise "it don't work".
To put it bluntly, (IMHO) this stuff can (and probably should) be discussed a *little* more openly to some degree...
In general terms, what are the circumstances that are making a decision on this assignment complicated? Perhaps some wider input would make implementing these types of (policy) decisions easier?
-Paul
Thanks, Chris for the response. My issue is with the lack of feedback. I approved the allocation but it wasn't allocated to the network table. The BGP is a secondary issue with respect to the allocation of the IP range and I don't understand why it would have to be postponed due to the pending BGP coordination. We waited a week for some kind of response but neither he nor I had received anything. There is nothing in the process outline that I read whereby the BGP goes into direct contact mode after the portal assignment. He contacted me on Jan 23 after hearing nothing since I posted the allocation on the 5th. I issued a contact query via the portal and also received nothing. I'm happy to see you are conversing with Keith and I will consider the matter closed. It would have been nice if you had taken the time to inform me of the direct contact since it would have saved me considerable time and I would not have wasted the bandwidth on the list.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:58 PM Paul Sladen via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
... in this case the end user and I have in fact been happily exchanging emails regarding the request, the last exchange being about 8 hours ago.
On 26 Jan 2021, at 17:08, Geoff Joy via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org
wrote:
The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
As a casual observe. I am puzzled.
Whilst I can't discuss individual cases on an open mailing list due to privacy concerns,
It's HAM, and ... like operating modes and frequency band allocation, public *coordination* is required, otherwise "it don't work".
To put it bluntly, (IMHO) this stuff can (and probably should) be discussed a *little* more openly to some degree...
In general terms, what are the circumstances that are making a decision on this assignment complicated? Perhaps some wider input would make implementing these types of (policy) decisions easier?
-Paul
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Hi Geoff,
The BGP part of the allocation process was previously carried out by Brian, who also communicated directly with the end user via email, I have continued that same process since I took over. Often the BGP process involves the exchange of private details that the end user may not wish to share. To comply with the various privacy laws we have to start from the standpoint of not sharing any information, unless the end user states otherwise. Sometimes end users requesting a BGP allocation will CC their emails to someone else, i.e. their coordinator, in which case I continue the discussion by using the “Reply-All”, that wasn’t the case here.
That said, I understand that the current Portal does lack certain facilities that would be useful to coordinators and others alike. The Portal is being redeveloped and one of the new facilities will be full traceability and transparency for all allocation workflows, including the BGP process. If you, or anyone on this list, would like to have input to the development process please contact me and/or Rosy off list.
Thanks, Chris - G1FEF
On 27 Jan 2021, at 06:26, Geoff Joy via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
Thanks, Chris for the response. My issue is with the lack of feedback. I approved the allocation but it wasn't allocated to the network table. The BGP is a secondary issue with respect to the allocation of the IP range and I don't understand why it would have to be postponed due to the pending BGP coordination. We waited a week for some kind of response but neither he nor I had received anything. There is nothing in the process outline that I read whereby the BGP goes into direct contact mode after the portal assignment. He contacted me on Jan 23 after hearing nothing since I posted the allocation on the 5th. I issued a contact query via the portal and also received nothing. I'm happy to see you are conversing with Keith and I will consider the matter closed. It would have been nice if you had taken the time to inform me of the direct contact since it would have saved me considerable time and I would not have wasted the bandwidth on the list.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:58 PM Paul Sladen via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
... in this case the end user and I have in fact been happily exchanging emails regarding the request, the last exchange being about 8 hours ago.
On 26 Jan 2021, at 17:08, Geoff Joy via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org
wrote:
The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
As a casual observe. I am puzzled.
Whilst I can't discuss individual cases on an open mailing list due to privacy concerns,
It's HAM, and ... like operating modes and frequency band allocation, public *coordination* is required, otherwise "it don't work".
To put it bluntly, (IMHO) this stuff can (and probably should) be discussed a *little* more openly to some degree...
In general terms, what are the circumstances that are making a decision on this assignment complicated? Perhaps some wider input would make implementing these types of (policy) decisions easier?
-Paul
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
Often the BGP process involves the exchange of private details that the end user may not wish to share.
"Often" here means "sometimes". (1) /Why/ are "private details" being exchanged *sometimes*, but other times not?
(ie. there appears to be variability in the process, but that variability is not documented...; otherwise the requestee would likely already have pre-submitted the information, because of knowing clearly what was going to be requested.
The Portal is being redeveloped and one of the new facilities will be full traceability and transparency for all allocation workflows, including the BGP process.
Teaching a computer, first requires knowing/recording the steps.
(Yourself/Brian know/knew how the workflow was done, but at the moment that information is still locked away, and not openly shared).
If you, or anyone on this list, would like to have input to the development process please contact me and/or Rosy off list.
...We have it again: "please contact me off list". (->memory hole.)
(2) What can I/we do to help, to keep discussion like this *on list*?
Here's the same standard offer to the trustees/employees; (*it requires a conscious decision+commitment to *want* be open...)
I (Paul Sladen) am willing to help Ampr/ARDC organise documentation- stuff. It is only possible to organise what is already written down and shared.
(3) Do yourself/the trustees want to do this?
-Paul
Hi Paul,
I do believe multiple people in the past have offered help with the various systems such as the portal or the WHOIS server in an attempt to make them more functional and stable (the WHOIS server often goes down and I have to email Chris to get it back up).
But as far as I can tell, the ARDC and Chris are not interested in receiving help in fixing these issues, despite seemingly not having any plans in the short term at least to fix them themselves. (The whois instability has been a thing since 2019 at least)
-Cynthia
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:06 AM Paul Sladen via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
Often the BGP process involves the exchange of private details that the end user may not wish to share.
"Often" here means "sometimes". (1) /Why/ are "private details" being exchanged *sometimes*, but other times not?
(ie. there appears to be variability in the process, but that variability is not documented...; otherwise the requestee would likely already have pre-submitted the information, because of knowing clearly what was going to be requested.
The Portal is being redeveloped and one of the new facilities will be full traceability and transparency for all allocation workflows, including the BGP process.
Teaching a computer, first requires knowing/recording the steps.
(Yourself/Brian know/knew how the workflow was done, but at the moment that information is still locked away, and not openly shared).
If you, or anyone on this list, would like to have input to the development process please contact me and/or Rosy off list.
...We have it again: "please contact me off list". (->memory hole.)
(2) What can I/we do to help, to keep discussion like this *on list*?
Here's the same standard offer to the trustees/employees; (*it requires a conscious decision+commitment to *want* be open...)
I (Paul Sladen) am willing to help Ampr/ARDC organise documentation- stuff. It is only possible to organise what is already written down and shared.
(3) Do yourself/the trustees want to do this?
-Paul
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Hi Cynthia,
On 1/30/21 3:14 PM, Cynthia Revström via 44Net wrote:>
I do believe multiple people in the past have offered help with the various systems such as the portal or the WHOIS server in an attempt to make them more functional and stable (the WHOIS server often goes down and I have to email Chris to get it back up).
But as far as I can tell, the ARDC and Chris are not interested in receiving help in fixing these issues, despite seemingly not having any plans in the short term at least to fix them themselves. (The whois instability has been a thing since 2019 at least)
It is well documented that there are issues with the Portal, as well as other technical items related to 44net. ARDC is aware, and we are in fact quite interested in fixing them. To that end we're reinstantiating the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (members to be announced next week) specifically to sort through its many issues and help prioritize them. From there, we will be working with developers to implement the needed work. A new, more stable back end is already in development.
When it comes to the work, both in the short term and the long term, there are multiple ways to solve the problems before us. This is why the TAC is so critical - with their input, we aim to determine a direction, one rooted in the people who are using the network, aimed toward its future health and growth.
One area where we do realize we could do a better job is with communications. It's understandable not to know this information if no one's said anything. This year ARDC will be hiring some additional staff, which will help us get the word out about what we're doing (among so many other things). For now, it's just me, and I'm working on a quarterly communication cycle and sporadically popping on 44net.
Speaking of quarterly communications, next Saturday 06 Feb we're doing a community video call. Read more and sign up here: https://www.ampr.org/feb-6-community-meeting-new-survey/
Please join if you can. Looking forward to sharing more with y'all very soon.
In the meantime - please know that you are heard and that solutions are in the works.
All the best and 73, Rosy
Rosy Wolfe - KJ7RYV Executive Director Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) ampr.org
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:06 AM Paul Sladen via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
Often the BGP process involves the exchange of private details that the end user may not wish to share.
"Often" here means "sometimes". (1) /Why/ are "private details" being exchanged *sometimes*, but other times not?
(ie. there appears to be variability in the process, but that variability is not documented...; otherwise the requestee would likely already have pre-submitted the information, because of knowing clearly what was going to be requested.
The Portal is being redeveloped and one of the new facilities will be full traceability and transparency for all allocation workflows, including the BGP process.
Teaching a computer, first requires knowing/recording the steps.
(Yourself/Brian know/knew how the workflow was done, but at the moment that information is still locked away, and not openly shared).
If you, or anyone on this list, would like to have input to the development process please contact me and/or Rosy off list.
...We have it again: "please contact me off list". (->memory hole.)
(2) What can I/we do to help, to keep discussion like this *on list*?
Here's the same standard offer to the trustees/employees; (*it requires a conscious decision+commitment to *want* be open...)
I (Paul Sladen) am willing to help Ampr/ARDC organise documentation- stuff. It is only possible to organise what is already written down and shared.
(3) Do yourself/the trustees want to do this?
-Paul
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Geoff Joy via 44Net wrote:
On or about January 5, 2021 I received an end-user allocation request for a "direct" /24 allocation "for working with ARDEN and IRLP for VPN and link setups" which I approved and submitted via portal.ampr.org. It didn't create the allocation I assigned to the network but was "referred to BGP coordinator". So far, there has been no action and no response to the original request nor a follow up to my request via the "contact us" link on the black hole that is the ampr.org portal. What is the status of the system and how are coordinators expected to act in this regard? I try to give my users timely, responsive service but it's very frustrating when I can't even track a submission or review submission histories. The end user has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
Hello Geoff,
normally the next action is that Chris Smith (G1EFF) responds up with a request to re-transmit all the details privately by email, and to move the conversation off-list ... after which (we) rarely ever get to hear anything more...
(Perhaps that is a bit of generalisation, though such requests seem to be frequent enough for patterns to form and emerge. Would it make sense, in future, that all requests initially raised *on-list* could receive a follow-up also *on-list* will a summary of what happened. (eg. T+1 week).
-Paul
My original contact with the end user (this, his second allocation) was via his application for a new subnet via the portal.ampr.org when I received email from the portal that a new application was submitted. I created an allocation for a /24 and because the "Direct" connection checkbox was set (as this is the flag for "I want to advertize") the coordination was "Sent to BGP Coordinator" when I submitted the form but there was no allocation assigned per my approval when I inspected the table. This made it appear as though no allocation was made. There is no mechanism in the portal web pages for a coordinator to inspect his subnet tables for "pending" allocations. All any coordinator can see is the allocations he's made. There is no record of past or pending applications & approvals so a coordinator is completely in the dark as far as what's happening in the back end. My perception was that I had made some kind of fat-fingered mistake and the allocation had failed.
I wouldn't have bothered with the 44-list but I was getting nowhere with the portal and I knew Chris was on here but I didn't know he was the BGP coordinator or who else might have been one. Now that I have received proper trial-by-fire training I will know what to expect.
-- Geoff Joy - ke6qh - AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties. (44.18/16)
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Paul Sladen 44net@paul.sladen.org wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Geoff Joy via 44Net wrote:
On or about January 5, 2021 I received an end-user allocation request
for a
"direct" /24 allocation "for working with ARDEN and IRLP for VPN and link setups" which I approved and submitted via portal.ampr.org. It didn't create the allocation I assigned to the network but was "referred
to
BGP coordinator". So far, there has been no action and no response to the original request nor a follow up to my request via the "contact us" link
on
the black hole that is the ampr.org portal. What is the status of the system and how are coordinators expected to act in this regard? I try to give my users timely, responsive service but it's very frustrating when I can't even track a submission or review submission histories. The end
user
has informed me that he is still awaiting action on the request.
Hello Geoff,
normally the next action is that Chris Smith (G1EFF) responds up with a request to re-transmit all the details privately by email, and to move the conversation off-list ... after which (we) rarely ever get to hear anything more...
(Perhaps that is a bit of generalisation, though such requests seem to be frequent enough for patterns to form and emerge. Would it make sense, in future, that all requests initially raised *on-list* could receive a follow-up also *on-list* will a summary of what happened. (eg. T+1 week).
-Paul
-
Cynthia Revström -
G1FEF -
Geoff Joy -
Paul Sladen -
Rosy Wolfe