[3189] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wm. Prichard Jones)
Tue Jun 18 22:32:02 1996
From: jones@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (Wm. Prichard Jones)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 19:23:23 -0700
To: "Kent W. England" <kwe@6SigmaNets.com>, gih@aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, jones@jehovah.arc.nasa.gov
Cool. Off-shore oil leases bring a tidy sum. Government is trying
to emulate private enterprise these days. But careful when you open
this box. It could ... argh#$%. Kent is right on.
/bill jones, and chargeback afficianado
nasa ames research center
In referenace to:
--- Forwarded mail from "Kent W. England" <kwe@6SigmaNets.com>
>From nanog-owner@merit.edu Tue Jun 18 14:53:21 1996
Return-Path: <nanog-owner@merit.edu>
Received: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT) from merit.edu (RFC1413 sender merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (8.7.1/1.5) id OAA09938
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id NAA18345 for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailhub.cts.com (mailhub.cts.com [192.188.72.25]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id NAA18340 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netguru.cts.com(really [204.94.77.43]) by mailhub.cts.com
via smail with smtp
id <m0uW4sw-000V85C@mailhub.cts.com>
for <nanog@merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 96 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
(Smail-3.1.92 1996-Mar-19 #3 built 1996-Apr-21)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618175326.00725468@mail.cts.com>
X-Sender: kwe@mail.cts.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:53:26 -0700
To: gih@aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston)
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe@6SigmaNets.com>
Subject: Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
At 08:40 PM 6/18/96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
>Of course this is not always the case, and typically a public resource
distribution
>space couples regulation with a tariff to achieve the ultimate outcome of fair
>and equitable distribution. The radio spectrum is perhaps the best covered
>territory here when looking at this space in relation to the policy debate over
>IP address management.
>
In this debate we have to take care when we talk about charging for
registration, whether we are intending to:
a) cover the cost of administering a resource (such as .com)
b) trying to let a market set prices
c) trying to cover the national debt (as with spectrum auctions)
Let's just be very sure that if and when fees or prices for addresses are
agreed, that someone doesn't step up and claim the right to auction
addresses to cover the US budget deficit. There might be a few people in DC
that would think to do that.
--Kent
--- End of forwarded message from "Kent W. England" <kwe@6SigmaNets.com>
