[6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003
Jeroen Massar
jeroen@unfix.org
Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:43:53 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Nicolas DEFFAYET [mailto:nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net] wrote:
> 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.
>
I wonder why you, personally, have an urge to 'defend' CNT1.
Is it because of the coincidence that all the changed lines
belong to you?
> > 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.
Day later, not fixed and still no reply from "CTN1".
> > > > 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.h
> tml) have
> the same thing and you don't reply to their pTLA request ?
That was not the subject. CTN1 is. But for your reference
June is month 6.. it is month 12 (December) now.
> "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.
We are 'dealing' with this one the same as yours then, as it
looks so confusingly similar. Same single person who replies too :)
> > ctn1.com is from 2003-04-25 according to whois.
>
> I see no thing about that in RFC2772.
That was from whois, but simply shows that they can't have
the 3 months experience because you just set them up.
> > 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.
This was also to underbuilt the above statement.
> > > > 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.
They couldn't find more 'peers 'at FNIX6 ?
> > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and
> reverse (ip6.int)
> >
> > These should be ip6.arpa really really soon.
>
> soon != now
Unfortunatly not :)
> > > > 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.
But it is required to maintain all your entries, which they are not.
And clearly you don't have the intention of fixing it for 'them' thus
will it ever be fixed?
It looks somewhat similar to your setup btw, coincidence?
> > > > 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.
You think, or do they hope that you will fix it for them?
It should work, you are providing 'transit' and can't see what
is going on here? Oddness.
> > 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.
But it does indicate usage, and apparently their usage is zilch.
Which doesn't give them enough users, so they are fine with that /48.
Note also that 6bone is a TESTbed, not address space for commercial services.
<SNIP>
> > $ 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.
But it would help to increase their reachability in case the sole
MX they have becomes unreachable, just like their website and their
IPv6 'connectivity'.
> > > > 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.
The above btw is exactly what they are doing: webhosting.
One /48 suffices for this, they can request more from their upstream: You.
> > > >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.
Sorry, but I didn't know that it wasn't going like you tried to show us.
But this is about CNT1 and the similarity in requests, is CNT1 suddenly
also going to launch a "PNIX" or something?
> 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.
The only reason, as you might have heared from the talks at the RIPE
meeting, for using the information is to be able to easily check up
on the routes you are pushing into the internet, so that we can track
the problems that those might generate. The same thing applies to all
the other participants, which is the main goal of the GRH project which
btw is a side project for SixXS (with capital X and S too). And like you
I also swear and curse and get onto their necks, just like everybody else.
You really are not special there.
Note also, like you tried to do before when requesting your own personalTLA
that SixXS doesn't have any TLA at all, it provides a service to the ISP's
that have big networks and provide a service to endusers, them playing the
transit party. But that has nothing to do with you, just like you responding
for CTN1, as they are not you, isn't it? Or are we thinking aloud here?
> > 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?
Isn't that really enough for them? Share a bit of 'NDSOFTWARE' with them
maybe you can team up and gain some employees 3 + 1 = 4.
> > 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.
But apparently they don't have that, they only have a /48 from your space
that you personally assigned to them and you also created everything for
them in the various registries. Doesn't it feel odd to you too?
> > 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.
This is about CNT1, and kinda also the same arguments which where stated
against your, oh sorry big NDSOFTWARE Corporation, for which you, personally
are the sole person who is 'active' and 'working' there.
There where mistakes, like you going through the loopholes of the request
which you are trying again, no response from CTN1 btw.
It is also quite obvious from the state of your site that nothing has
changed ever since. Thus I don't expect CTN1 to give anything to the 6bone
either.
As about those 'other' pTLA's that are wrong, yes they are and they
should be retracted asap. FIBERTEL for instance isn't reachable at all,
CNT1 apparently isn't either. CC to their 6bone@ctn1.com maybe the other
people are not subscribed to the 6bone list either, note that that is
also a requirement.
I simply do not see the need for it, if they need more space, let them
ask you, ehm NDSOFTWARE Corporation Inc, to provide some more space and
work it out together, you will make a perfect team.
Greets,
Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iQA/AwUBP84SvimqKFIzPnwjEQJGSwCeP8YuwlTIj0j2av0fR0/zBcfCajwAnRyr
tENqAEct+JZXO8pOZOo0Jcna
=WJ+/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----