From owner-piara Mon Jan 6 20:05:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.2/8.7.1) id UAA05297 for piara-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:05:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au (nico.aarnet.edu.au [139.130.204.16]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.2/8.7.1) with SMTP id UAA05276; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:05:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from [203.50.0.66] (gorp.telstra.net [203.50.0.66]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id WAA13864; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:08:05 +1100 X-Sender: gih@nico.aarnet.edu.au Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:08:59 +1000 To: piara@apnic.net From: gih@telstra.net (Geoff Huston) Subject: Re: For Profit vs. Not for Profit (or non profit) Cc: pagan@apnic.net Sender: owner-piara@apnic.net Precedence: bulk David, >I think the problem may be more along the lines that many people in >the ISP biz have clues on how to implement this, perhaps more than >one. Unfortunately, they're all a bit different. I was hoping PIARA >would lead to some sort of experiment or pilot project or something in >which a couple of the possible route settling scenarios could be tried >out (perhaps with quatloos instead of real money), but after a few >promising discussions, nothing happened and PIARA shuddered to a stop. >This was the plunge I was speaking of. The difference are quite minor - each player is of course of the view that everyone should pay them and they should not pay anyone. Apart from that minor nit I will concede that was broad agreement of how to do it. (glib? me? nah! :-) ) >To keep this slightly relevant to PAGAN, one of the suggestions made >in the past is that the registries take into account the ratio of >advertised routes to allocated routes and when this ratio went off >1:1, the registries would apply some penalty. On the mailing list, >this seemed to have some level of consensus. At the IETF meeting, the >only consensus impression I got was that this is a bad idea. > >Would a softer, peer-pressure style approach be more appealing? E.g., >how about the registries start generating reports, posting to the >various ops lists when we notice a more specific being announced out >of a prefix we've assigned? I'm glad to see IETF meetings are still able to apply a face to face reality check to some concepts that appear somewhat extraterrestrial in origin! Yes a softer approach would be more appealing - registries are not Routing Police - or at least not in 1996. What's that? Januay 1st has come and gone? Whoops - I'd better pull my head in - I'm so very sorry Officer - I'll knock down those naughty routing advertisements straight away sir. :-) g From owner-piara Tue Jan 7 00:34:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.2/8.7.1) id AAA08935 for piara-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:34:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.2/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA08900; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:33:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from Mailbox.mcs.com (Mailbox.mcs.com [192.160.127.87]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2-biteme) with ESMTP id JAA14851; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:35:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from Jupiter.Mcs.Net (karl@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Mailbox.mcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA20257; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:35:41 -0600 (CST) Received: (from karl@localhost) by Jupiter.Mcs.Net (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA26044; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:35:41 -0600 (CST) From: Karl Denninger Message-Id: <199701061535.JAA26044@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Subject: Re: For Profit vs. Not for Profit (or non profit) To: piara@apnic.net Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:35:40 -0600 (CST) Cc: gih@telstra.net, pagan@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <199701061041.TAA20250@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Jan 6, 97 07:41:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-piara@apnic.net Precedence: bulk > I think the problem may be more along the lines that many people in > the ISP biz have clues on how to implement this, perhaps more than > one. Unfortunately, they're all a bit different. I was hoping PIARA > would lead to some sort of experiment or pilot project or something in > which a couple of the possible route settling scenarios could be tried > out (perhaps with quatloos instead of real money), but after a few > promising discussions, nothing happened and PIARA shuddered to a stop. > This was the plunge I was speaking of. > > Big problem, I guess, is that the people with the clues still adamantly > refuse to stop wasting the, what, 4 - 5 hours a night (day?) they spend > sleeping. > > To keep this slightly relevant to PAGAN, one of the suggestions made > in the past is that the registries take into account the ratio of > advertised routes to allocated routes and when this ratio went off > 1:1, the registries would apply some penalty. On the mailing list, > this seemed to have some level of consensus. At the IETF meeting, the > only consensus impression I got was that this is a bad idea. Well, that's simple. If the case is one of an ISP granting another ISP (who happens to be multihomed) some of their space, and you prevent that, you end up on the wrong end of an anti-trust and restraint of trade action. There are more than a few people who think that telling someone they can't multi-home, and then turning around and telling them that they can't get any address space on top of it, is a pretty serious problem, yes. > Regards, > -drc -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal