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

[Tim Chown]

Given the fact that this may be the last pTLA (though I have a suspicion
a few other people may try to get that honour in the few days to come!)
I think we could be "liberal in what we accept" here.   It seems unecessary
to waste too many cycles on nit-picking this request.

Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefix routes, so the utility
of 6bone pTLAs is already beginning to wane (which is a good thing - it's
been a great time and a lot of excellent work has been done, but it's 
time to move on :)

Perhaps we should have an initiative to encourage existing pTLA owners
to officially hand back their prefixes.  Some have done so already.

Tim

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:15:32PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> -----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-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone