retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules

[Bob Fink]

Peter,

At 11:25 AM 2/10/98 +0000, Peter Curran wrote:
...
>I support the criteria that you have established for the creation of new
>pTLAs.  
>
>I think that the application by BT-Labs should go ahead - they clearly meet
>the criteria that you have established.
>
>I think the drawback to approaching the list every time a new pTLA is
>proposed or requested is that 'concensus' is likely to be based on only a
>couple of guys putting an opinion forward.  Would it not be more sensible
>to approve pTLA assignment for organisations such as BT-Labs who clearly
>meet the criteria without reference to the list.  I think that you should
>request judgement from the 6bone community only if there is some doubt
>about the qualifications of the applicant or where some of the criteria are
>not wholly met.

I'll think on this one.  Jim Bound has a similar point of view.


>Whilst on the subject, is it not time to start bearing down on those
>backbone sites that have a pTLA assigned, but do not appear to be following
>the 'rules'?  For example, I still find the odd RFC1897 address popping up
>when I do a traceroute across the backbone.  Likewise, some sites would
>appear to be semi-permamently disconnected - from a couple of discussions
>with other sites this would appear to be caused by inappropriate routing
>policies.

Yep.  It's almost time to start (to confess, I've been busy on other things
and not had the time yet...but will soon).


Thanks for your comments,

Bob