[6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Gav wrote:

> TOWARDEX as NDF is referring to was published to the list by 
> Bob on the 2nd of this Month. CTN1 was published the very next day.
> 
> I can see (excluding this one) 7 replies to CTN1 request.
> There are no replies to TOWARDEX request.

The reason that I do approve of the request by TOWARDEX is that
I know, from following their mailinglist, that they have a community
thing going across the complete US of A and are _already_ providing
a lot of connectivity to US citizens *today*. They really would
benefit from a pTLA and the fact that they are 'allowed' to peer then.
They handle their own connectivity already and are in a reel need
of their own IP space. Requesting a pTLA is for them the quickest
and cheapest, it is for the community.

They also have a quick responsive NOC and over there people who
really know what they are doing. Also, you can easily check their
website, the project is highly active and growing.

They are also providing transit and services to other parties and
are connected are more than one city, they are all around the US
for that matter.

Which is why I didn't make a comment about the TOWARDEX request.
But as you ask, here is the positive feedback. I fully support
their request for a pTLA. I don't support the CTN1 request as
apparently, as you can see, it is again done by Mr DEFFAYET, the
real requestor apparently doesn't have time to answer the questions
and comments that have been made. But the biggest point is what
I already, and Pekka before me, brought up: they are a hosting company.
Next to the facts that they have just been kicked alive, by the
same person who already got a controversial pTLA and who apparently
is really working on his own, all the other people that 'worked'
there and never said anything in response have all dissappeared.
As recommended, "NDSOFTWARE" can prolly assign a big chunk from
it's /32 to CTN1 and they are all happy. A seperate TLA is really
not the way to solve their 'problem'.

I am also wondering btw what the real arguments for requesting a
TLA by them is, but only they will know.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP84MIymqKFIzPnwjEQLHfgCfYp3kwPlJ7ySp7wtu3iOHsfzFxhkAn1hS
jIVQ4D8URzN6nyb5WbPwascl
=9979
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----