[6bone] Re: sTLA alloc policies (fwd)

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, David Kessens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE
> > NCC evaluates the applications..?
> 
> Ask the RIPE NCC, fill in an application yourself, ask other people
> how they qualified (that's why some smart people hire a consult with
> experience with this kind applications to help them out).

I don't think RIPE NCC would respond to queries like that with useful
answers, or people would tell exactly how they qualified (or often colored
the truth).  In any case, we already have sTLA so there is no need to fill
anything.
 
> > > What are you trying to insinuate here ?!?
> > > Please refrain from such comments if you don't know the details.
> > 
> > Indeed, the applications are not public so I do not, unfortunately, know
> > details :-(
> 
> so don't spread rumors about us coloring the truth while you have no
> proof of any wrongdoing.

Depending on the interpretation of "other organizations", the behaviour is 
self-evidently "questionable" or self-evidently "okay".
 
> > > Despite this, it really
> > > shouldn't be too hard for any large multinational company to show
> > > plans for assigning address space to 200 other organizations. No need
> > > to color the truth at all.
> > 
> > You must be using some other definition of other organizations than I do.  
> > Further, I don't believe there are even 200 countries out there. :-)
> > 
> > Let's see.  Extending your interpretation any company with 200 employees
> > could be entitled to a block: they _do_ want to provide xDSL service and
> > proper addresses to their employees (who are private users) using the
> > recommended /48 assignment!
> 
> No. No. No!
> 
> I didn't say that 'other organizations' are equal to one employee. You
> are making that up in your own fantasy world.

I didn't say you said so: read again.  I said that is relatively logical
extension of the arguments you said.  "employees" are private persons, 
different legal entities.
 
> You seem to be living in a very simple world. Do you have any idea how
> multi-national organizations work ?!? They have partnerships, joint
> ventures, cooperations with other organizations, are member of
> associations, support non-profit organizations, are part of standards
> bodies etc.. Many of these organizations are not owned or operated in
> any kind of way by the multi-national organization and still the
> multi-national organization can provide ip addresses and connectivity
> to such 'other organizations'.

No, I really don't have that much idea.

I'm not saying that using multiple /48 for big multinational organizations 
is easy.  Far from it.  It must be more difficult than some small ISP's 
getting sTLA.  But that's how the current rules are.

> PS also, instead of suggesting there might not be 200 countries, you
>    could have done some more research:
>    the UN has 191 memberstates.
>    the number of countries in the world is close to this number,
>    depending on your definition of what constitutes a country. 
>    So you are correct that there are less than 200 countries, but 
>    it is close enough to 200 that it really doesn't help you.

I don't waste my time on irrelevant research, which is why I used 'might 
not be'.  Whether there is 190 or 210 doesn't really matter.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords