[3175] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gopi K Garge)
Tue Jun 18 04:40:09 1996
From: gopi@ece.iisc.ernet.in (Gopi K Garge)
To: davidc@apnic.net (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 11:09:17 GMT+5:30
Cc: amb@xara.net, roll@stupi.se, iepg@iepg.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199606180227.LAA12270@teckla.apnic.net>; from "David R. Conrad" at Jun 18, 96 11:31 am
David R. Conrad sez:
> >> 3) if you charge, then poor organizations can't connect
> >> to the Internet (so who's paying for their connectivity?)
> >Specific case of the merit good argument.
> Good argument? If an organization wants to connect to the Internet, it is
> almost certain the address cost will be so far down in the noise as to be
> undetectable. If address costs were a significant portion of the total
> costs, there is always NAT/ALG.
I am sure that there are enough mature technology solutions
to ensure that "poor" organisations can still use the
Internet effectively. The bottom line is that addresses **are**
a scarce resource. The APNIC has been encouraging ISPs in
the region to do sub-C allocations and that will reap its
own benefits despite the fact that there is an overhead
in maintenance.
There is also a substantial amount of user education that is
required in this part of the world to convey the fact that
it is not **necessary** that all the hosts in your organisation
be on the Internet. (I wouldn't see this statement as out of context
here, since the discussion is all about charging, anyway ..:) )
In quite a few ways, the AP region is distinct in its approach to the Internet.
BTW, cld I ask if the GISD document is available in any complete
form ?
Thanks
--Gopi Garge
ERNET, INDIA
