From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Heads up:
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Hello Kevin, On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Heads up: https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. Is this supposed to make me feel better ? Hmmm, I don't have any relationships there & I'll bet so DON'T alot of others . These continual .05 & .10 antics of every frigging organisation that has anything todo with the internet today is getting -WAY- out line (not the prices I saw there) . Next some idiot is going to say Because I provide toilet paper to Cisco/Bay-Networks/... I'm going to bill all of you with a wipe your backend surcharge. Signed Prodtor&Grumble or somesuch . Gawd where does this end .
Twyl, JimL +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com>
Hello Kevin,
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Heads up: https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. Is this supposed to make me feel better ? Hmmm, I don't have any relationships there & I'll bet so DON'T alot of others . These continual .05 & .10 antics of every frigging organisation that has anything todo with the internet today is getting -WAY- out line (not the prices I saw there) . Next some idiot is going to say Because I provide toilet paper to Cisco/Bay-Networks/... I'm going to bill all of you with a wipe your backend surcharge. Signed Prodtor&Grumble or somesuch . Gawd where does this end .
Actually, it's a win for us as we have been one of the ISPs who have been contributing (to the tune of 5 figures) to keep the RADB alive for the past couple of years since the NSF quit funding it. Most of the world has been getting by for free, but we felt the RADB was essential to a well run Internet and were willing to pay (along with Verio, ANS, and some others) to keep it in place. There are a great many parts of the Internet that were funded by the government. The government has no real business running the Internet, so I am just as happy to see the finding become privatized. (Yes, ESnet is U.S. Government funded.) Most larger ISPs are at one of the places where the route servers are located and most local ISPs have their registrations handled by their up-streams who are at the route servers. For those who do their own, it will be another .05 & .10 charge, I'm afraid. But, until all functions that make the Internet run are funded by those who use the Internet, there will undoubtedly be more of them. Now that I've said that, I do think that Merit should be doing a MUCH better job of letting people know about this. I heard about it a couple of weeks ago on the RADB mailing list, but until today, nothing on NANOG, an obvious place for it and one managed by Merit. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Of course, today is the first time I heard about it as well. They `could' have sent mail to the maintainer records at the least. ted Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com>
Hello Kevin,
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Heads up: https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. Is this supposed to make me feel better ? Hmmm, I don't have any relationships there & I'll bet so DON'T alot of others . These continual .05 & .10 antics of every frigging organisation that has anything todo with the internet today is getting -WAY- out line (not the prices I saw there) . Next some idiot is going to say Because I provide toilet paper to Cisco/Bay-Networks/... I'm going to bill all of you with a wipe your backend surcharge. Signed Prodtor&Grumble or somesuch . Gawd where does this end .
Actually, it's a win for us as we have been one of the ISPs who have been contributing (to the tune of 5 figures) to keep the RADB alive for the past couple of years since the NSF quit funding it. Most of the world has been getting by for free, but we felt the RADB was essential to a well run Internet and were willing to pay (along with Verio, ANS, and some others) to keep it in place.
There are a great many parts of the Internet that were funded by the government. The government has no real business running the Internet, so I am just as happy to see the finding become privatized.
(Yes, ESnet is U.S. Government funded.)
Most larger ISPs are at one of the places where the route servers are located and most local ISPs have their registrations handled by their up-streams who are at the route servers. For those who do their own, it will be another .05 & .10 charge, I'm afraid. But, until all functions that make the Internet run are funded by those who use the Internet, there will undoubtedly be more of them.
Now that I've said that, I do think that Merit should be doing a MUCH better job of letting people know about this. I heard about it a couple of weeks ago on the RADB mailing list, but until today, nothing on NANOG, an obvious place for it and one managed by Merit.
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
-- Ted Frohling (TF30-ARIN) The University of Arizona 520.621.4834 CCIT Room 307 tsf@Arizona.EDU PO Box 210073 www.Telcom.Arizona.EDU/tsf Tucson, AZ 85721-0073
If they will not change their mind and change the terms to something like _all unpaid objects will be frozen and maintaners removed_, we are facing a very strong storm in the Internet when this brainless system remove something important from the data base. Remember, a lot of providers use RADB for the configuration different distribute lists... It's safe tp block the future changes of the unpaid objects, but any removing can destroy the whole Internet... Alex. On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:22:02 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> To: Mr. James W. Laferriere <babydr@baby-dragons.com> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADB Fees
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com>
Hello Kevin,
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Heads up: https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. Is this supposed to make me feel better ? Hmmm, I don't have any relationships there & I'll bet so DON'T alot of others . These continual .05 & .10 antics of every frigging organisation that has anything todo with the internet today is getting -WAY- out line (not the prices I saw there) . Next some idiot is going to say Because I provide toilet paper to Cisco/Bay-Networks/... I'm going to bill all of you with a wipe your backend surcharge. Signed Prodtor&Grumble or somesuch . Gawd where does this end .
Actually, it's a win for us as we have been one of the ISPs who have been contributing (to the tune of 5 figures) to keep the RADB alive for the past couple of years since the NSF quit funding it. Most of the world has been getting by for free, but we felt the RADB was essential to a well run Internet and were willing to pay (along with Verio, ANS, and some others) to keep it in place.
There are a great many parts of the Internet that were funded by the government. The government has no real business running the Internet, so I am just as happy to see the finding become privatized.
(Yes, ESnet is U.S. Government funded.)
Most larger ISPs are at one of the places where the route servers are located and most local ISPs have their registrations handled by their up-streams who are at the route servers. For those who do their own, it will be another .05 & .10 charge, I'm afraid. But, until all functions that make the Internet run are funded by those who use the Internet, there will undoubtedly be more of them.
Now that I've said that, I do think that Merit should be doing a MUCH better job of letting people know about this. I heard about it a couple of weeks ago on the RADB mailing list, but until today, nothing on NANOG, an obvious place for it and one managed by Merit.
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
I might suggest that it will end when our infrastructure gets out of the red. It may surprise many to know that the major infrastructure has been in the red from day-one. Volunteer services are on the debit-side of the ledger. Without some offsetting credits, the entire system is off-balance and potentially unstable. Why does it not bother anyone that most of our top-level infrastructure is 1) Paid for, or subsidized, by USG/NSF funding 2) root-servers.net is strictly voluntary (and unpaid) 3) IANA has no detectable revenue stream 4) The BIND-master (Vixie) has to go begging for funding (ISC) 5) IETF is strictly voluntary. 6) Generally insufficient financial support for the whole mess. Why is that? In spite of all this, the system keep running. When they finally figure out that they actually have to take care of "brick and mortar" (you know, roof overhead and bread on the table) issues a bunch of whiners show up to complain. Free is fine and good, but sooner or later the landlords need to be paid and the fields need harvesting in order to make the bread such that the kids can eat. I don't mind nominal fees if it assures the continued existance of the service. My personal concern is that some of these high-dollar dot-com maniacs don't feel that they have a need to contribute towards the infrastructure. ------------------------------------------ R O E L A N D M. J. M E Y E R Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc President, MHSC-Systems Chief Administrator, MHSC.NET Operations Officer, DNSO.NET 925.373.3954
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Mr. James W. Laferriere Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 2:47 PM To: Kevin Oberman Cc: Majdi Abbas; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADB Fees
Hello Kevin,
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Heads up: https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html
Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being exempt. Is this supposed to make me feel better ? Hmmm, I don't have any relationships there & I'll bet so DON'T alot of others . These continual .05 & .10 antics of every frigging organisation that has anything todo with the internet today is getting -WAY- out line (not the prices I saw there) . Next some idiot is going to say Because I provide toilet paper to Cisco/Bay-Networks/... I'm going to bill all of you with a wipe your backend surcharge. Signed Prodtor&Grumble or somesuch . Gawd where does this end .
Twyl, JimL
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:51:56 -0800 "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
Free is fine and good, but sooner or later the landlords need to be paid and the fields need harvesting in order to make the bread such that the kids can eat. I don't mind nominal fees if it assures the continued existance of the service.
My personal concern is that some of these high-dollar dot-com maniacs don't feel that they have a need to contribute towards the infrastructure.
Um, let us keep it the way it is. Whomever pays the piper, calls the tune. regards, fletcher
Good point.
-----Original Message----- From: Fletcher E Kittredge [mailto:fkittred@gwi.net] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 5:26 PM To: rmeyer@mhsc.com Cc: 'Mr. James W. Laferriere'; 'Kevin Oberman'; 'Majdi Abbas'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADB Fees
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:51:56 -0800 "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
Free is fine and good, but sooner or later the landlords
the fields need harvesting in order to make the bread such
need to be paid and that the kids can
eat. I don't mind nominal fees if it assures the continued existance of the service.
My personal concern is that some of these high-dollar dot-com maniacs don't feel that they have a need to contribute towards the infrastructure.
Um, let us keep it the way it is. Whomever pays the piper, calls the tune.
regards, fletcher
Btw, 50$/domain * million-domains is not enougph fee for the ROOT-SERVERS, IANA etc? Domain owner collects a lot of money, the only question is how does they use this money. Even national domain fee (suc as .ua or .ru) can provide enougph to keep the infrastructure in order. On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:26:06 -0500 From: Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> Reply-To: 'Mr. James W. Laferriere' <babydr@baby-dragons.com>, 'Kevin Oberman' <oberman@es.net> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com Cc: 'Mr. James W. Laferriere' <babydr@baby-dragons.com>, 'Kevin Oberman' <oberman@es.net>, 'Majdi Abbas' <majdi@puck.nether.net>, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADB Fees
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:51:56 -0800 "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
Free is fine and good, but sooner or later the landlords need to be paid and the fields need harvesting in order to make the bread such that the kids can eat. I don't mind nominal fees if it assures the continued existance of the service.
My personal concern is that some of these high-dollar dot-com maniacs don't feel that they have a need to contribute towards the infrastructure.
Um, let us keep it the way it is. Whomever pays the piper, calls the tune.
regards, fletcher
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
I might suggest that it will end when our infrastructure gets out of the red. It may surprise many to know that the major infrastructure has been in the red from day-one. Volunteer services are on the debit-side of the ledger. Without some offsetting credits, the entire system is off-balance and potentially unstable.
Why does it not bother anyone that most of our top-level infrastructure is 1) Paid for, or subsidized, by USG/NSF funding
Where?
2) root-servers.net is strictly voluntary (and unpaid)
We will know that is a problem when we run out of volunteers. Until then, it must be a "good thing".
3) IANA has no detectable revenue stream
Hmmm, I seem to remember that the ISoc/IAB/IETF is funding its share.
4) The BIND-master (Vixie) has to go begging for funding (ISC)
This is a crying shame. But, I thought it was working out. Am I uninformed?
5) IETF is strictly voluntary.
Goodness gracious, a founding principle! You would prefer what, instead?
6) Generally insufficient financial support for the whole mess.
Why is that? In spite of all this, the system keep running. When they finally figure out that they actually have to take care of "brick and mortar" (you know, roof overhead and bread on the table) issues a bunch of whiners show up to complain.
WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
### On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:56:26 -0700, "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> ### casually decided to expound upon Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> the ### following thoughts about "Re: RADB Fees ": KO> > From: Majdi Abbas <majdi@puck.nether.net> KO> > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT) KO> > Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu KO> > KO> > Heads up: KO> > KO> > https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html KO> KO> Yes, but before getting excited, please read the full text including KO> the part about participants at the MAEs, PAIX, AADS, and PacBell being KO> exempt. #include <https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html> IMPORTANT: The registration fee for Internet providers peering with Route Server Next Generation machines at the PAIX, Mae-East, Mae-West, AADS and PacBell exchange points is included as part of the RSNG service at these exchanges. Providers at these five exchange points do *NOT* need to submit a $200 payment for any maintainer objectes registered with their autonomous $system number in the RADB. #endinc /* https://www.merit.edu/radb/fee.html */ The above seems a little unclear. I'm assuming the exemption is based on the fact that the exchange point providers are subsidising mntner registration fees for IXP participants as part or through the RSng services they have contracted to Merit. The RSes are then provided as a value-added service of the exchange. That being the case, one would assume that a network provider does not need to actually peer with the RSes in order to be exempt from paying the mntner fee since RS-peering is not mandatory at any of those exchanges... they only have to be a participant of the exchange point. Am I right here? Can someone from Merit comment? -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@GCtr.Net> ]======================+ | Network Statistics Engineer, NSM/Net-Eng /~_ |_ () |3 /-\ |_ _ GLOBAL | | VOX: +1(408)543-4828 Fax: +1(408)543-4806 \_| C R O S S I N G CENTER | +===============[ 141 Caspian Court, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 ]===============*/
participants (9)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Fletcher E Kittredge -
Jake Khuon -
Kevin Oberman -
Majdi Abbas -
Mr. James W. Laferriere -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Ted Frohling -
William Allen Simpson