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

[Gregg C Levine]

Hello from Gregg C Levine
I however, am inclined to agree with everyone here, who's been saying
that this one should be denied. Given the fact that there is a dearth
of responsible names on that WHOIS record that was presented earlier,
I am inclined to state that fact strongly.

But to make up my mind more thoroughly, I would need more data behind
CTNI, where is the database located for their request? For that matter
where are the same entries for NDSoftware? I suspect, that Jeroen, and
two others are very right here. In fact I'd be surprised, if the two
entities are related at some level.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu
[mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On
> Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:32 PM
> To: '6BONE List'
> Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16
December 2003
> 
> 
> 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/AwUBP84MIymqKFIzPnwjEQLHfgCfYp3kwPlJ7ySp7wtu3iOHsfzFxhkAn1h
> S
> > jIVQ4D8URzN6nyb5WbPwascl
> > =9979
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6bone mailing list
> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone