Open Letters to Sixxs

Pim van Pelt pim at
Thu Sep 15 17:28:27 CEST 2011


Meftah perhaps you mailed the wrong people -- you seem to be
specifically addressing SixXS, but you mailed nanog at and
ipv6-ops at, both of which may not be able to
authoritatively answer your questions.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah at> wrote:
> why SIXXS is very strict like that ?
I suppose it's up to SixXS to define their policy (one account per
person comes to mind *) and revise it if they see a need. They are
free to accept or reject any user and I do not believe they have an
obligation to serve any given user (ie access is a privilege not a
right), and I think they have a right to ask for information just as
much as users have a right to not use their service if they believe
the amount of information SixXS wants to know about them and their
intended use is too much. In general I think they are rather
transparent about rejection reasons, in your case likely because you
neglected to heed the FAQ item on one account per person.

I'm not sure bringing this up in the scope of nanog or ipv6-ops is
productive. It's not clear to me, except for your plethora of
questions, what you are trying to accomplish.

I'm sorry you feel that SixXS is not the right place for you. Luckily
there's plenty of choice in high quality tunnelbrokers, as others in
this thread have pointed out.


Pim van Pelt <pim at>

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list