[OCCAID] Proposal for EINTAP

[James]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:39:52AM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> 
> 
>      j> All we see here are two side of political arguments and
>      j> nothing changed as far as network is concerned.
> 
> Yeah, and nothing will change, because our input doesn't mean jack.
> Maybe you should just stop posting EINTAP policy here.  Just implement
> it and tell us.  Clearly I'm not qualified to have an opinion---I'm
> just a member of a vocal minority who see all the name-calling and
> become afraid their tunnels will be delayed if they speak up.

It had been made clear(? or I may not have :-( ) by me that existing
members like yourself and others will not be migrated to EINTAP unless
they want to. They will retain their direct connectivity to 30071.

EINTAP is only for new members. Ofcourse, members who connect to EINTAP
are certainly welcome to pursue direct connectivity to 30071 in the
future as they demonstrate their usefulness to the community.

The reason Miles, for EINTAP framework is because OCCAID gets a lot
of new users who request tunnels, use it for a little, then just walk
away after their experiment or whatever is done without even telling us.
So what happens is, it increases the maintenance overhead on the JTC
people.

What we are trying to solve is create a framework to accept *new*
members in a way that they can show and demonstrate their usefulness
to the community through already-well-established OCCAID downstream
member. Once they demonstrated that they are here to stay around for
long (i.e., you), and have sufficient clue in routing to not bother
JTC people much, they are certainly welcomed to request direct
connection. I do regret that information as detailed as this was not
communicated earlier.

However, if none of this was not made clear to you earlier, my
apologies, I might not have included enough information.

[ snip ]
> 
> EINTAP sounds on-the-whole like a good idea.  Like, I'm not saying to
> myself, ``thank god i got my tunnel before they moved over to that
> EINTAP'' or anything like that.  I wouldn't mind moving over to that
> setup when you shut down ewr2 if that ends up being easier for you,
> assuming I'm still around at that point.  Anyway, if it goes well I
> think it could be very positive.

Like I mentioned above, there is no need to worry for existing customers.
However, indeed, I think if it goes well, it will be very positive to the
community. Only time will tell how this framework works..

Thanks,
-J

-- 
James Jun                                            TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and
james at towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net