[6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003
Nicolas DEFFAYET
nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net
Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:07:24 +0100
6bone Folk,
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 21:43, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Bob Fink wrote:
I reply to this mail because i'm very surprised of the reply of Jeroen.
> Only a few comments:
>
> > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully
> > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this
> > closes 16 December
> > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list.
> >
> > <http://www.ctn1.com>
>
> 8<---------------------------------------------
> Forbidden
> You don't have permission to access / on this server.
>
> - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.ctn1.com Port 80
> - --------------------------------------------->8
>
> ctn1.net does exist and work apparently
I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly.
> > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months
> > > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit.
> > > During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be
> > > operationally providing the following:
> > >
> > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003.
>
> The site object was last changed:
> changed: mg@ctn1.com 20031118
>
> The person objects all have a changed date of 20031113 or 20031118
> and didn't exist before that apparently.
>
> As for cnt1.net
>
> reg_created: 2003-08-06 09:30:00
> expires: 2004-08-06 09:30:00
> created: 2003-08-06 15:30:01
> changed: 2003-11-03 21:48:20
>
> The ASN was assigned 2003-08-29, thus matching these.
Can you explain me why the pTLA request TOWARDEX
(http://mailman.isi.edu/pipermail/6bone/2003-December/008145.html) have
the same thing and you don't reply to their pTLA request ?
"TOWARDEX established 6bone connectivity since June of 2003."
ipv6-site: TOWARDEX
origin: AS30071
ASNumber: 30071
ASName: ASN-TBONE
ASHandle: AS30071
Comment:
RegDate: 2003-07-15
^^ 07 = July
Updated: 2003-07-15
Please deal all pTLA request identicaly.
> ctn1.com is from 2003-04-25 according to whois.
I see no thing about that in RFC2772.
> IPv4 addresses for the 'servers' where assigned 20030825.
> I wonder how operational they where, but alas...
I see no thing about that in RFC2772.
You have the right to use new IPv4 address.
CTN1 have a native IPv6 connexion, so there isn't IPv4 address on the
link.
> > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their
> > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each
> > > tunnel that the Applicant has.
> > >
> > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1
> > >
> > >
> > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity
> > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate
> > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6
> > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone
> > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request.
> > >
> > >Our ASN is 29402.
> > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6.
> > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6.
>
> Only one peer?
Many peering partner require a pTLA or a sTLA for peer.
> > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int)
>
> These should be ip6.arpa really really soon.
soon != now
> > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at
> > least one host
> > > system.
> > >
> > >We have 3 nameservers:
> > > - ns1.ctn1.net
> > > - ns2.ctn1.net
>
> 3 nameservers? Listed are two, and of those:
>
> $ host ns1.ctn1.net
> ns1.ctn1.net has address 195.140.140.1
> $ host 195.140.140.1
> Host 1.140.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> $ host ns2.ctn1.net
> ns2.ctn1.net has address 195.140.141.1
> $ host 195.140.141.1
> Host 1.141.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> And the guessable third:
>
> $ host ns3.ctn1.net
> ns3.ctn1.net has address 195.140.142.1
> $ host 195.140.142.1
> Host 1.142.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
It's not required to have IPv4 reverse for DNS server in RFC2772.
> > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system
> > > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the
> > > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable.
> > >
> > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6)
>
> $ host -t any www.ctn1.com
> www.ctn1.com has address 195.140.143.10
>
> $ host -t any www.ctn1.net
> www.ctn1.net has address 195.140.143.10
> www.ctn1.net has AAAA address 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5
>
> traceroute to www.ctn1.net (3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
> <SNIP>
> 5 tun1.cr1.par1.fr.ip.ndsoftware.net (3ffe:4013:f:7::1) 42.028 ms 52.713 ms 41.165 ms
> 6 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 40.447 ms 41.087 ms 40.71 ms
> 7 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 3967.01 ms !H
>
> $ ping6 -c 10 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5
> PING 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5(3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) 56 data bytes
> >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=4 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable
> >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=8 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable
> >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=10 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable
>
> - --- 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 9092ms
>
> Not reachable?
I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly.
> The website only shows a 'hosting' company, no user endpoints or similar.
> I personally wonder for what they need more than the /48 they currently
> already have. If they have a requirement for more space they can request
> that from their sole upstream.
>
> http://www.ctn1.net/reseau.php shows that it isn't being used (yet) either.
I see no thing about traffic requirement in RFC2772.
> > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide
> > > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants must
> > > provide a statement and information in support of this claim.
> > > This MUST include the following:
> > >
> > >
> > > a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three
> > preferable, with
> > > person attributes registered for each in the
> > ipv6-site object
> > > for the pTLA applicant.
> > >
> > >RP10-6BONE
> > >MG22-6BONE
> > >BV3-6BONE
> > >
> > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that
> > all support
> > > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify
> > attribute in the
> > > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant.
> > >
> > >6bone@ctn1.net
>
> $ host -t mx ctn1.com
> ctn1.com mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.com.
> $ host -t mx ctn1.net
> ctn1.net mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.net.
>
> Only 1 IP, could be balanced, but even then...
It's not required to have many MX records in RFC2772.
> > > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" that
> > > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the
> > Applicant is a
> > > major provider of Internet service in a region,
> > country, or focus
> > > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and
> > information in
> > > support this claim.
> > >
> > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many
> > >projects.
> > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual IPv4 and IPv6.
> > >All IPv6 services is free of charge.
> > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server
> > with IPv6.
>
> This looks a lot like the NDSOFTWARE request to me, their 'services'
> have not become available either and even worse, they removed all the
> contact information from the 6bone registry, which only contains 1 person
> now. But the director of NDSOFTWARE can probably explain that part.
> The people that "worked" at NDSOFTWARE have all vanished except for Nico...
Please don't troll on my company.
I respect your project Sixxs, don't forget that we provide our routes to
your route-server for help your project, so please respect my company
NDSoftware.
> Btw it is allowed, certainly in 6bone space to assign more than a single
> /48 to a 'downstream', maybe they could use address space from NDSOFTWARE?
> It also seems that that will be their sole 'gigabit' uplink.
It's not a uplink, it's a link to an Internet exchange point. You can
have many upstream on the same physical link.
> Personally, mainly also because of the last reason I don't see why they
> would require a pTLA. A couple of /48's would do just fine for a webhoster.
> And they can get enough space from their 'upstream'.
Please check previous pTLA request, a lot of request didn't respect
fully the RFC2772 (only one contact, unassigned/reserved ASN, no real
project,...).
There was a pTLA allocated with a unassigned/reserved ASN.
=>> Please deal all pTLA request identicaly. <<=
Best Regards,
--
Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware
NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/
FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/
EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/