NAIPR Message

pagans at principle #3

Ken and all

Ken Leland wrote:
> Randy wrote:
> > Ken Leland wrote:
> > > Geez Randy, you have not been, exactly, shy with your responses on
> > > numerous mailing lists over the years.
> > > {part about continual condescention getting old elided. }
> >
> > AFTER I made a very successful ISP and cashed in on it.
> >
> > Been there.  Done that.  Have the track record.
> >
> I'll buy that but why all the condescention?  A track record is
> clearly a key thing, indeed the main thing, but there is
> more to leadership than track record alone and you well know it.

  Of course there is, and Randy does know this, or should.  If he
doesn't I would be greatly suprised.  But maybe this is an overiding
factor in his mine?  I don't know.  Maybe her could enlighten us all?
> Back on the technical issue, my understanding is that I need <=205
> space if I want to route (for the purpose of reliable multi-homing),
> say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24).  Of course I'm assuming
> straight forward routing not special, unavailable, tunnel arrangements
> with my upstreams or vixie-style application layer rewrites.
> Is this an accurate assessment on my part, given whats been publically
> announced by Sprint and others?

I think so!  It has been published many times.  SO I do not know how
anyone could think otherwise, unless there is an alterior motive in play
here.  Which it is beginning to sound like...

> This given the difficulty getting
> old space from my upstreams is what's got me scrambling lately.
> I can sell dedicated T1 service (finally! after multihoming, getting a T3
> *and* establishing a local track record) and am doing so with passion.
> I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential
> unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting
> them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months.
> I don't really think this is too good for anyone, especially given
> my announcements are up to 5 and climbing. With the proposal to
> allow a /19 for 25 percent or more utilized, multi-homed, established,
> ISP's when it results in significant route anouncement reduction - I
> think we would all win, including the net, am I wrong?

  Nope you are not wrong.  
> If my postings are indicative, to you, of an idle time waster, then
> indeed I will work harder, read more and post less as I, also, tire of a
> not particularly high s/n and not the highest level of technical
> discussion of the points as well.

  Seems like a control political game is afoot here.  Why?  I do not 
> Ken Leland
> Monmouth Internet

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at