Summary

  • Mexico's Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones granted Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz authorization IFT/223/UCS/AUT-COM-268/2019 for a non-exclusive, ten-year telecommunications-services commercialization activity. The title permits the sale of public telecommunications services acquired from public networks operated by concessionaires; it does not make the holder a concessionaire or prove that he owns, built, or operates such a network.
  • A separate current record identifies AS272377 as active in LACNIC RDAP and announced in RIPEstat on 23 July 2026, with three observed prefix entries. Those technical records share the same individual name with the 2019 authorization, but they do not prove a causal connection between the two. For AS272377 and 189.36.240.0/22, the current RPKI result is unknown and lists no validating ROA.

One name in two public systems

The public record around Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz is useful precisely because it is narrow. It does not offer a conventional professional biography, a company history, or a first-person account of building a network. Instead, it places the same individual name in two systems designed to answer different questions. The first is a formal authorization issued by Mexico's Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, or IFT. The second is the public registration and routing record for an autonomous system, AS272377.

Each system gives the name a different context. The IFT document records a legal act. It identifies Candelas Ortiz as the individual holder of a defined authorization for telecommunications-services commercialization and sets out the scope and conditions of that permission. LACNIC's RDAP record identifies an internet number resource, reports its status, and associates its registrant handle with the same name. RIPEstat then supplies a dated observation of whether that autonomous system was announced, which prefixes met its visibility threshold, and what one specified RPKI query returned.

The name match is significant, but it is not a universal connector. A shared name can establish that two public records identify the same named person when the match is exact and the surrounding identifiers are clear. It cannot silently transfer every legal meaning in the first record into the technical fields of the second. Nor can it turn the technical visibility of an ASN into proof that every activity permitted by the authorization occurred.

That distinction shapes the entire profile. The records can be aligned without being collapsed. The IFT title shows what was authorized in 2019. The current internet records show how AS272377 is registered and observed at the stated query time. Between those points lies an evidentiary space that the documents do not fill. Responsible reading means preserving that space rather than replacing it with an attractive story of inevitable progression.

What the IFT title actually authorizes

The legal starting point is authorization IFT/223/UCS/AUT-COM-268/2019. The document grants the title in favor of Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz for establishing and operating or exploiting a telecommunications-services commercialization activity. That language identifies both the holder and the regulated activity, but the decisive word is commercialization. The entity is not a grant to install and operate an owned public telecommunications network as a concessionaire.

The authorization instead concerns the commercialization of public telecommunications services acquired from public networks operated by concessionaires. In practical documentary terms, the title sits between service acquisition and service sale. A concessionaire operates the public network from which services or capacity can be obtained under the relevant arrangements. The authorization holder may commercialize the covered services under the title's conditions without acquiring concessionaire status merely by holding this document.

This is more than a technical distinction in legal vocabulary. Calling the title a concession would change the kind of right the record proves. Calling it an owned-network licence would add infrastructure rights and facts that the document does not establish. Saying that it proves a network was completed would move still further, replacing a legal permission with an account of physical execution. None of those formulations is supported.

The accurate description is narrower and more informative: Candelas Ortiz received an individual authorization for a telecommunications-services marketing activity whose entity depends on services acquired from authorized public networks. That description preserves the role of the concessionaires named in the legal structure. It also leaves open every operational question the title does not answer, including which services were later offered, which agreements entered into force, how customers were served, and whether any separate infrastructure existed.

Three dates and three different acts

The authorization preserves a compact administrative chronology. It records an application dated 29 July 2019. It cites an IFT decision dated 9 September 2019. The title itself was issued in Mexico City on 3 October 2019. Those dates belong to related stages, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

The July date marks the request placed before the authority. It shows when the formal proceeding began in the record used here; it does not show that permission already existed on that day. The September date marks the decision attributed to the IFT. It indicates that the competent authority had reached the determination reflected in the title. The October date marks issuance of the authorization document and begins the term described by that document.

Keeping the sequence intact prevents several common distortions. A request is not a grant. A decision date is not automatically the date on which every commercial or technical step began. Issuance is a legal event, not evidence that services were already being sold, that agreements had been completed, or that infrastructure had been placed in operation. The three dates create a reliable administrative sequence while remaining silent about subsequent execution.

This disciplined chronology matters later when AS272377 enters the picture. The presence of an earlier regulatory title and a current ASN record may look like a ready-made timeline, but the documents provide no intermediate chain connecting them. The IFT dates should therefore remain attached to the authorization proceeding. They cannot be repurposed as milestones in an undocumented autonomous-system history.

Commercialization without concessionaire status

The IFT document explicitly frames the activity as telecommunications-services marketing without concessionaire status. That clause supplies the central legal boundary of the record. The authorization holder may conduct the specified commercialization activity, but the title does not place him in the position of the concessionaires whose public networks supply the underlying services.

This separation helps explain why ordinary shorthand can be misleading. The phrase "telecommunications authorization" may sound as though it covers every layer of a service, from civil works and transmission equipment to retail contracts. Here, the title is more particular. It addresses a commercial relationship built on public telecommunications services obtained from networks that are already operated under concessions. The holder's authorization and a network operator's concession occupy different places in that arrangement.

The distinction also limits what can be said about physical assets. A marketer can have technical systems, customer-facing processes, contractual relationships, and operational responsibilities without the commercialization title itself proving ownership of public network infrastructure. Conversely, the absence of concessionaire status in this document is not a finding that the holder could never participate in any other lawful technical arrangement. It simply means this authorization cannot be cited as proof of an owned public network.

The strongest conclusion is therefore also the most restrained. In 2019, the IFT authorized Candelas Ortiz to establish and conduct a defined service-commercialization activity as a non-concessionaire. The title created a regulated basis for that activity. It did not certify network ownership, confer the rights of a concessionaire, or document the completion of a telecommunications build-out.

Services acquired from public networks

The entity clause identifies where the commercialized services are meant to come from: public telecommunications networks operated by concessionaires. This provision gives the authorization a relational structure. It is not a free-standing permission detached from the regulated network environment. The covered activity depends on acquiring public telecommunications services from parties that operate the underlying public networks under their own legal authority.

The document also requires commercialization through capacity from public telecommunications networks under corresponding agreements. The existence of that condition makes agreements legally relevant, but it does not establish the identity of any counterparty in practice. It does not show which agreement was signed, when service under an agreement began, what capacity was obtained, or whether arrangements changed over time. Those questions would require records not present here.

This limit is important because the word "acquired" can tempt readers to invent a specific supplier relationship. The title describes the authorized model in general terms. It does not provide a verified operating map. No named upstream network, interconnection point, service package, or traffic path can be inferred from the authorization alone. Even if such a relationship would be necessary to conduct the activity, necessity in the legal model is not proof of a particular completed transaction.

The same reasoning prevents a second overstatement: that acquiring services means the holder owned no equipment or performed no technical work. The record does not settle those matters either. Its entity clause defines the source of the public services being commercialized and the role of concessionaire-operated networks. It does not inventory every asset, function, or system that might support commercialization. The defensible account stays with the relationship the title actually describes.

A ten-year, non-exclusive title

The authorization has a ten-year term measured from issuance. Because the document is dated 3 October 2019, that provision gives the title a defined legal duration from that date, subject to the applicable framework and conditions. It does not guarantee ten years of continuous commercial activity, and it does not establish what happened during any part of the term.

Duration is a property of the permission, not a performance result. A title can remain legally framed for a set period while business activity changes, agreements begin or end, services evolve, or the holder's circumstances remain unknown to the public. The document used here does not supply a year-by-year account. It therefore supports a statement about the term and nothing more detailed about continuity.

The title is also non-exclusive. That characteristic means the authorization does not reserve the commercialization activity to Candelas Ortiz or promise protection from other authorized entities. It defines a lawful position within a regulated field without converting that position into a monopoly or a protected market outcome. Non-exclusivity is part of the legal scope, not evidence about the number or behavior of competitors.

These clauses also have no demonstrated relationship to the current status of AS272377. A reader cannot reason that because the authorization's term extends across the date of the RIPEstat observation, the ASN must have arisen under that title. Overlapping time is not causal evidence. The records show coexistence within part of a calendar period, but they do not show the legal, commercial, or technical link that would be needed to join them.

Service and tariff obligations

The authorization does not stop at permission. Its conditions include requirements concerning service registration and tariffs where applicable. These provisions show that commercialization is a regulated customer-facing activity rather than an unrestricted right to resell anything under any terms. The holder must operate within the administrative framework attached to the title.

Service registration matters because the authorization's broad entity does not mean every possible telecommunications offering becomes automatically established in the public record. The conditions contemplate formal treatment of the services to be commercialized. Yet the authorization itself does not provide a later register of which services were entered, altered, or withdrawn. It proves the obligation, not the completed history of compliance.

Tariff requirements should be read with the same care. The document includes tariff-related duties where they are applicable, but it does not disclose a price list in the evidence considered here. It does not identify retail amounts, discount structures, contract lengths, or customer segments. Nor does the existence of a tariff obligation establish whether an offering was inexpensive, competitive, profitable, or widely adopted.

The distinction between obligation and outcome is essential. A legal condition tells the holder what must be done to conduct the authorized activity within the rules. Evidence that the condition exists is not automatically evidence that every required filing occurred, and it is not evidence that the authority found a violation. Without a separate record, both positive and negative conclusions about compliance would be speculative.

Commercial practices, complaints, and accessibility

The title also addresses how the authorized activity meets the public. Its conditions include a publicly available code of commercial practices, complaint-handling responsibilities, and accessibility obligations. These are not engineering specifications for a network. They are safeguards and procedures associated with the commercial relationship between a service marketer and the people it may serve.

A commercial-practices code gives a formal place to the terms and standards governing customer-facing conduct. The authorization's requirement shows that the holder could not treat commercial behavior as entirely private or informal. But the title does not supply evidence about how often any code was consulted, how it evolved, or how individual interactions were resolved. It establishes a duty to maintain the relevant public-facing framework.

Complaint handling is similarly specific in purpose and limited in proof. The condition recognizes that a commercialized telecommunications service needs a route for concerns and disputes. It does not show that complaints occurred, how many there were, what subjects they concerned, or whether outcomes satisfied users. The presence of a complaint process must never be rewritten as evidence either of widespread problems or of excellent service.

Accessibility obligations widen the frame beyond price and basic service description. They indicate that the authorization carries responsibilities concerning the ability of users to engage with the service and its commercial arrangements. Yet the record does not provide an accessibility audit, a list of implemented measures, or testimony from users. It proves that accessibility belongs within the conditions, not that any particular implementation has been assessed.

Agreements and the limits of contractual inference

The authorization requires the registration of relevant agreements. This condition fits the title's basic model: services are commercialized using capacity from public telecommunications networks, so the arrangements supporting that use have regulatory significance. The requirement adds documentary discipline to the relationship between the authorization holder and concessionaire-operated networks.

What it does not add is a list of actual counterparties. The authorization identifies no verified supplier for the purposes of this profile, and no agreement record has been used to establish one. It would therefore be wrong to name a network, describe negotiated capacity, or assign a route to a commercial relationship. The condition says agreements must be handled in the required way; it does not reveal the later contents of the agreement register.

Nor does the condition establish that the holder became part of the concessionaire's organization. Purchasing or otherwise obtaining services under an agreement does not merge the legal identities of the parties. The authorization preserves the opposite distinction: one party holds the commercialization title, while another operates the public network under a concession. A contract can connect their activities without erasing their separate roles.

The same boundary applies when AS272377 is considered. An autonomous-system record may prompt questions about transit, interconnection, or routing relationships, but the IFT agreement condition supplies no answers about them. It cannot identify an upstream provider, prove a peering arrangement, or explain why the observed prefixes were visible. Those are technical and contractual matters beyond the fields in the two record sets.

The registration duty is nevertheless important. It shows that the legal design anticipated verifiable arrangements rather than an undefined claim to commercialize services. It gives the authorization an institutional connection to the networks on which the model depends. The right conclusion is that agreements were part of the required structure. The wrong conclusion is that an unknown agreement can be filled in from later routing observations.

Permission is not proof of deployment

The authorization establishes a legal capacity to conduct the covered activity, subject to its terms. It does not document a completed deployment. No map of facilities, list of installed equipment, inventory of links, activation report, coverage measurement, or commissioning date appears in the facts used for this profile. The title cannot serve as a substitute for any of them.

This boundary remains necessary even though the legal wording refers to establishing and operating or exploiting the commercialization activity. Those verbs describe what the authorization permits. They do not certify that each permitted step occurred or that it occurred at a particular scale. A grant is prospective in its legal function; an operating history would require separate evidence of conduct after issuance.

The document also cannot establish ownership of a public telecommunications network. Its entity expressly relies on services obtained from public networks operated by concessionaires, and it identifies the holder as a marketer without concessionaire status. Treating it as owned-network proof would reverse the distinction contained in the title itself.

At the same time, the document should not be used to assert that no activity occurred. Absence of deployment evidence in this record is not evidence of absence. The correct position is agnostic: the authorization proves permission and conditions, while the later level of implementation is not shown. This avoids both promotion and unwarranted dismissal.

Several other attractive claims fail for the same reason. The title does not reveal customer numbers, revenue, profitability, service quality, geographic coverage, market position, or community effect. It cannot support praise for commercial success or criticism of commercial failure. It contains no measured outcomes against which either judgment could be made.

AS272377 in the LACNIC record

The second public system begins with a number rather than a legal title. LACNIC's RDAP response concerns autonomous system 272377, with the starting and ending autonomous-system values both set to that number. The record marks the resource as active and identifies the registrant entity handle MX-JGCO-LACNIC with the name Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz.

RDAP provides structured registration information about internet number resources. In this case, its strongest contribution is identity alignment: a specific ASN, an active status, a registrant handle, and the same individual name found in the IFT authorization. These fields establish a current public-resource association. They do not describe a corporation and should not be expanded into a company title.

The word active belongs to the registration record. It indicates the status returned for the autonomous-system resource when the archived response was obtained. It does not mean that every route is continuously visible, that every service is functioning, or that the registration has produced any particular commercial result. Registration status and routing observation are separate dimensions, which is why the RIPEstat response remains necessary.

An ASN is also not a physical network inventory. It identifies an autonomous system in the public internet-number and routing context, but the record does not list buildings, towers, fiber routes, radios, routers, employees, customers, or service territories. The name association is precise at the resource level and silent at those other levels.

Nothing in the RDAP fields ties AS272377 to authorization IFT/223/UCS/AUT-COM-268/2019. The same name permits the records to be discussed together as parts of one person's public documentary footprint. It does not establish that the ASN was requested because of the authorization, used to carry services sold under it, or controlled through any specific agreement contemplated by the IFT title. Those would be causal or operational claims for which the records provide no bridge.

A dated RIPEstat overview

RIPEstat adds a routing observation to the registration record. In its overview queried on 23 July 2026, the service labels the holder AS272377 - Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz and reports the autonomous system as announced. The overview also describes the containing block as assigned by LACNIC. These fields reinforce the association among the number, the regional registry, and the named holder.

The date is essential. Routing is observable state, not an immutable biographical attribute. Saying that RIPEstat reported AS272377 as announced on 23 July 2026 preserves the time boundary of the result. Saying simply that the ASN is always announced would claim continuity the single response cannot establish. The overview offers a current snapshot at its query time, not a complete history.

Announced status also answers a limited question. It shows that the resource met RIPEstat's criteria for being observed in routing at that time. It does not measure uptime, reachability from every network, traffic volume, latency, congestion, or service quality. It does not show who configured the announcement or which commercial arrangement supported it.

The holder label should be handled in the same way as the RDAP name field. It is a public technical label connecting AS272377 to Candelas Ortiz. It does not assign an executive position, establish corporate ownership, or show that every operational decision was made by the named person. A holder string is valuable because it is exact; adding an unrecorded job title would make it less exact.

The agreement between RDAP and RIPEstat is meaningful within these limits. LACNIC reports an active autonomous-system resource associated with Candelas Ortiz, while RIPEstat reports the same ASN and name in an announced overview. Registration and observation point toward the same public identity. They still do not answer the legal and commercial questions left open by the IFT authorization.

What the three prefix observations show

RIPEstat's announced-prefix response for AS272377 lists three entries at the 23 July 2026 query window: 189.36.240.0/22, 189.36.240.0/24, and 189.36.241.0/24. The first is the broader aggregate. The two /24 entries are more-specific prefixes that fall within that /22. Their simultaneous appearance is a routing observation, not evidence of three unrelated address holdings.

Prefix length changes the granularity of an announcement. A /22 describes a larger address block than a /24, while a more-specific route can be visible alongside its covering aggregate. The response establishes that RIPEstat observed these three prefix forms for the autonomous system under its stated method. It does not explain why the more-specifics were present.

Several technically plausible explanations could exist for more-specific announcements, including traffic policy, connectivity arrangements, operational segmentation, or temporary routing choices. None can be selected from this response. The prefix list contains no statement of intent and no account of the configuration behind it. A careful profile reports the visible hierarchy without assigning a motive.

The list also does not prove physical coverage. IP prefix size cannot be converted into a count of customers, municipalities, access points, or kilometers of infrastructure. Address space may be routed in ways that bear no simple relationship to the geography or scale of a retail service. The record gives network-layer visibility, not a service-area map.

Nor can the entries be used as a performance measure. The presence of an aggregate and more-specifics says nothing by itself about packet delivery, route stability, capacity, redundancy, or user experience. It identifies what met the observation service's threshold during the query window. That is a concrete and useful fact, provided the analysis does not make the prefixes answer questions they were never designed to answer.

The visibility threshold matters

RIPEstat warns that its announced-prefix result excludes routes with very low visibility in RIS full-feed data. That note changes how the list should be described. The three entries are not presented as a guaranteed complete inventory of every route that might have existed anywhere. They are the routes that satisfied the service's visibility criteria for the response.

This methodological caveat guards against two opposite mistakes. The first would be to call the list exhaustive. A route below the threshold may not appear, so absence from the response cannot conclusively prove that no such route was visible to any observer. The second mistake would be to dismiss the listed entries as merely hypothetical. They were included because they met the method used by RIPEstat.

Observation services necessarily present a view shaped by their data and rules. Here, RIPEstat states the relevant limit directly. The profile therefore treats 189.36.240.0/22, 189.36.240.0/24, and 189.36.241.0/24 as reported observations at the query window, not as an eternal or universal route table.

The caveat also prevents false precision about changes over time. A later response could differ because routing changed, because visibility changed, or because the service's view captured a different state. The current record does not contain a time series that would distinguish among those possibilities. It supplies one dated result with an explicit threshold.

RPKI unknown is not a validating result

The current RIPEstat RPKI query pairs AS272377 with 189.36.240.0/22. Its result is unknown, and the response lists no validating ROAs. Those two facts set a hard boundary around any routing-security claim. The queried route cannot be described as RPKI-valid on the strength of this response, and the record does not show a completed route-origin authorization for the /22.

RPKI validation concerns whether a route announcement is covered by cryptographic authorization data that supports the origin relationship being announced. A validating ROA would provide the relevant authorization for the covered prefix and permitted origin under its terms. The response used here reports no such validating ROA for this exact ASN-prefix query. Its status must therefore remain unknown.

Unknown is also not a synonym for valid. Recasting it as "secure," "verified," or "protected" would erase the result actually returned. The fact that the prefix appeared in the announced-prefix response does not change that. Routing visibility and RPKI validation answer different questions: one concerns observed announcement, while the other concerns the available authorization data for the origin relationship.

At the same time, the result should not be sensationalized. The record does not support an accusation of abuse, malicious conduct, or a defective service. It supplies a technical validation state for one specified query. The accurate public statement is modest: as of the 23 July 2026 response, AS272377 and 189.36.240.0/22 returned unknown, with no validating ROAs listed.

The scope of the query matters as much as its status. It concerns the /22 aggregate paired with AS272377. It should not be generalized into a claim about every route, every possible prefix length, every security control, or the overall operation of any network. No broader security assessment is present.

This distinction is especially useful because routing-security language often migrates too quickly from a database field into a verdict. Here, the evidence permits neither celebration nor condemnation. It permits a transparent description of a missing validating result at a known query time. That description is enough to tell readers what has and has not been demonstrated.

Why the two records do not form a causal chain

The IFT authorization and the AS272377 records share the name Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz. They also concern different aspects of telecommunications and internet activity. Those points make comparison reasonable. They do not prove that the later public-resource identity resulted from the 2019 authorization.

A causal account would need connective evidence. It might identify a decision to obtain the ASN for services commercialized under the title, an agreement linking the authorization's service model to the autonomous system, or an operating record showing how the two were used together. None of that appears in the materials used here. The record contains an authorization chronology and a current network-resource snapshot, with no documented bridge between them.

Time alone cannot supply the bridge. An earlier event followed by a later observation does not establish that the first produced the second. The authorization's ten-year term overlaps the RIPEstat query date, but overlapping dates demonstrate coexistence, not dependence. The ASN could have a relationship to the authorized activity, yet that possibility remains unproven and should not be reported as fact.

The systems also classify their subjects differently. The IFT title names an individual authorization holder and defines a commercialization activity. RDAP names a registrant entity for an autonomous-system resource. RIPEstat labels an ASN holder and records routing observations. Similar everyday words such as "holder" do not make the legal entities identical.

Keeping the records separate does not diminish the name match. It makes the match more intelligible. The reader can see that Candelas Ortiz has a documented place in a 2019 Mexican regulatory title and a documented place in current regional internet-number data. What remains unknown is the path between those places. A profile committed to evidence should state that unknown directly rather than conceal it beneath a smooth narrative.

What this public record cannot measure

Neither the IFT title nor the network-resource responses measure commercial scale. They provide no subscriber count, revenue figure, profitability result, sales volume, or market share. An active ASN and visible prefixes cannot stand in for those figures. A ten-year authorization cannot stand in for them either.

The records do not measure service quality. RIPEstat's announced status does not report throughput, latency, interruption frequency, support responsiveness, or customer satisfaction. The IFT conditions identify complaint handling and accessibility as obligations, but they do not publish outcomes for either. There is no basis here for a positive or negative quality judgment.

Geographic reach is also unresolved. The authorization defines a legal commercialization activity without providing evidence of actual coverage. The IP prefixes do not reveal where users or facilities are located. No physical network map, deployment schedule, or measured service footprint connects the legal and routing records.

The documents do not establish company ownership or management. The IFT title is granted to an individual, and the internet records associate an individual name with AS272377. Neither supplies a corporate organization chart, equity record, executive appointment, or legal-representative designation. Assigning any such role would add a claim absent from the evidence.

Community effect is equally beyond reach. Internet infrastructure can matter deeply to the places it serves, but no community testimony, adoption data, access comparison, or social-outcome measure appears here. The importance of connectivity as a general subject cannot be converted into a personal-impact claim about Candelas Ortiz.

These absences are not defects to be repaired with speculation. They define the type of profile the records can sustain. This is a study of public legal scope, resource identity, observed routing, and validation status. It is not a verdict on a business, a network, or a person's broader career. The difference protects both accuracy and privacy while giving the documented facts their proper weight.

A precise public profile

Jose Guadalupe Candelas Ortiz's public record can be stated clearly without being enlarged. In 2019, the IFT granted him a non-exclusive, ten-year authorization for telecommunications-services commercialization. The title permits a non-concessionaire marketing activity based on public services acquired from networks operated by concessionaires. It imposes administrative and customer-facing obligations, but it does not prove ownership or completion of a public telecommunications network.

In a separate system, LACNIC RDAP currently identifies AS272377 as active and associates its registrant handle with Candelas Ortiz. RIPEstat's 23 July 2026 overview reports the ASN as announced under the same name. Its announced-prefix response lists one /22 and two more-specific /24 observations while warning that very low-visibility routes are excluded. Its RPKI response for the ASN and /22 is unknown, with no validating ROA listed.

The combination is meaningful because official systems independently place the same name beside a legal authorization and an internet routing identifier. The combination remains bounded because no record demonstrates how one led to the other. It does not reveal a corporate role, a customer base, financial performance, physical reach, service quality, or social effect.

That boundary is the central finding, not a footnote. Public infrastructure records are often most valuable when they are allowed to remain specific. A title can prove permission without proving deployment. A registry can prove resource association without proving business ownership. A routing observation can prove visibility without proving performance. An RPKI query can report unknown without supporting either a claim of validation or a sweeping security judgment.

Read on those terms, the record offers a coherent and verifiable profile. It shows where Candelas Ortiz is named, what each public instrument says, and what questions remain unanswered. The result is less dramatic than a conventional success story, but it is more useful: a clear separation of legal authority, internet-number identity, routing observation, and the evidence still missing between them.

Sources