[1918] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan B. Clegg)
Thu Feb 15 16:58:22 1996
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:47:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Alan B. Clegg" <abc@gateway.com>
To: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
cc: Carl Payne <cpayne@fiber.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199602152109.NAA01142@lint.cisco.com>
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[lack of cooperation example removed]
> This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
> draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
> in the text.
>
> This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
I agree, and do not support it in any way (please, don't flame *ME*) I
just have this ..er.. funny feeling that cooperation among small ISPs that
are fighting with everyone else for that smaller and smaller piece of the
pie is not going to be the easiest thing to make work.
I agree.. creating small groups of ISPs that cooperate on addressing in
geographic areas connecting to major service points would be the best
thing in the world. If we could agree to cooperate, we would not have the
quagmire that we have now, agreed?
Business nature (and dog-eat-dog economics) force non-cooperation at the
low (and high) end. Middle men are left to themselves.
-abc
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
