Fwd: Re: $110,000 for Gated Source Code
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries. MHSC prefers open-source whenever we can get it and prefer to run reference-standard code. This is why we run sendmail v8.8.8, qpopper, BIND, and others. We are a Caldera VAR and our servers are built up from Caldera Open Linux Standard edition, with about 30 add-ons <groan>. We *do* have BRU, Netscape, and other commercial binaries that have been bought, but not before attempting to find acceptable reference-standards. We have also provided DewPoint/Caldera with input towards an Enterprise Server distribution for Linux. Anyway, we've applied for an ASN and ran into the BGP4 requirement. Ergo, we were looking for the reference-standard BGP4 implementation, which is GateD. We (I) was *very* surprised at the attitude exhibited at <http://www.gated.org>. Very much anti-commercial. But, that does not matter to me as I have $other$ things to worry about (Paying the rent around here is one of them <sigh>). Ergo, having run *that* trail to ground, I posted a query here in NANOG, that Dean Anderson, Shane Wright, Craig Labovit, and others have answered. I now have gated v3.5.9, for Linux, and am building it now. I'll probably run into trouble, as I do with most things that don't have a configure script, or have an otherwise non-standard build process (Why is it that *only* the academic originated stuff is such a PITA? <sigh>). Back to the point, we are a commercial technology R&D house that is also bringing up an ISP (MHSC.NET). As such, since we actually have a gawd-awful-scummy profit motive (why else form a corporation?), we do not qualify for Academic membership in the Gated Consortium. The prices that I quote here are for the level of membership which MHSC would have to sign-up for in order to obtain what we really need. There are lower-orders of membership, but if you look at the URLs you'll find that the minimum is $10s of K-bucks$ for the first year, plus an annual maintentance agreement of, at least, half of the first year premium (and we thought we had profit-at-heart). Being a startup, we don't need such expense (it comes out of *my* pocket, personally, and I ain't that rich). Again, this is not a rant at the gated folks. I frankly wasn't much surprised. I thank all those who helped me obtain the sources for gated-3.5.9. BTW, Flemming did comment that since gated was NSF funded, it may be inappropriate for such fees to be charged. In reallity, the message clearly states that "start-ups need not apply". They just want to keep out the riff-raff. I've long-ago quit getting emotional about these things and have come to expect it from acadamia-types. The URL is ;
The latest public release of gated is 3.5.9 and is available at:
ftp://gated.merit.edu/net-research/gated/gated-3-5-9.tar.gz
Lots of information regarding licenses, bug reports, and releases can be found at http://www.gated.org/
Cheers, Shane
Thank you, Shane. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 20:08:54 -0700 To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net> From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> Subject: Re: $110,000 for Source Code
At 09:46 PM 6/7/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
Roeland,
I noticed your comment on NANOG about $110,000 for souce code. I must say, I was confused. What did that cover ?
Who is that paid to ?
As an answer, I'll quote a message I wrote to someone else about this same issue.
At 08:24 PM 6/7/98 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
Where can I get latest and which is the latest. I prefer open-source but I'll take binary-only if I don't have to cough-up the $110KUS for it. GAWD, what a rip-off!
I'm curious, did someone actually claim to sell bgp4 for linux for 110K? If so, I'd like to know who...
--Dean
From <http://www.gated.org/new_web/code/doc/code_info/product/intro.html#Source Code>
Source Code
The GateD source code, tools and documentation are based on three different product lines: GateD Unicast, GateD Multicast, and GateD IPv6. Each of the products has its own software base, release dates, and product descriptions.
New GateD Source code, tools and internal documentation are available to GateD members only . Binaries for utilities or on-line documentation are available for anonymous ftp or via the web.
Members of the Academic and Research community can join the Merit GateD Consortium by simply filling out a GateD Academic and Research membership. This membership requires that the member:
sign the GateD Membership, register the machines to which GateD source code and/or binaries will be distributed, and, agree to return any enhancements to the project for redistribution.
and as regards the price see <http://www.gated.org/new_web/consort/member_info/prospects/howto.html>
Across-Product Line Memberships
Gold Membership
Existing members of two product lines may elect the Gold membership for $45,000. Existing members of one product line may select Gold membership for $75,000. The fee for new members is $110,000.
Gold Members have the top level access to GateD sources and to the developers. Internships are available for technical staff members from Gold members. Gold members are helping bring new protocols and services to GateD. Gold members may redistribute GateD binaries for two product lines in commercial products for the duration of the GateD membership. GateD source code for these two product lines may be distributed to development teams at the Member's corporate offices or research sites. Source code may not be distributed in commercial products.
Gold members may send 4 voting members to the GateD Consortium meetings.
I say again, "GWAD, what a rip-off!"
_________________________________________________ Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (RM993) President and CEO. e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com Web-pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA -----------------------------------------(legal notice)-------- Note: Statements made in this message do not necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All forcasts and projections are to be considered as forward-looking and presume conditions which may not be referenced herein. -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries.
MHSC prefers open-source whenever we can get it and prefer to run reference-standard code. This is why we run sendmail v8.8.8, qpopper, BIND, and others.
I see no need for open source when it is quite obvious you do not understand anything that you are compiling.
We are a Caldera VAR and our servers are built up from Caldera Open Linux Standard edition, with about 30 add-ons <groan>. We *do* have BRU, Netscape, and other commercial binaries that have been bought, but not before attempting to find acceptable reference-standards. We have also provided DewPoint/Caldera with input towards an Enterprise Server distribution for Linux.
Linux.. the choice of a gnutered generation.
Anyway, we've applied for an ASN and ran into the BGP4 requirement. Ergo, we were looking for the reference-standard BGP4 implementation, which is GateD. We (I) was *very* surprised at the attitude exhibited at <http://www.gated.org>. Very much anti-commercial. But, that does not matter to me as I have $other$ things to worry about (Paying the rent around here is one of them <sigh>). Ergo, having run *that* trail to ground, I posted a query here in NANOG, that Dean Anderson, Shane Wright, Craig Labovit, and others have answered.
Well, you can probably write your own BGP implementation in about a month. This would cost you considerably less than $110k assuming a conservative valuation of your time ($4.25-$5.00/hr).
I now have gated v3.5.9, for Linux, and am building it now. I'll probably run into trouble, as I do with most things that don't have a configure script, or have an otherwise non-standard build process (Why is it that *only* the academic originated stuff is such a PITA? <sigh>).
LINUX#make sh: make: command not found LINUX#Ihatethesefuckingcomputersasdf3252r23t2g sh: Ihatethesefuckingcomputersasdf3252r23t2g: command not found LINUX#goddamn these academic types etc..
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite... Scott
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Scott Mace wrote:
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite...
And if they're going to sell products based on gated, they should be paying royalties to the Gated Consortium...but why should the average ISP that wants to try some of the features of gated 4.x be forced to put down a big chunk of change? Many ISPs will have the attitude "if I have to spend X on gated, and still pay for the hardware and figure out the software, I'll just hand the money to Cisco and have one company to point fingers at if it doesn't work or breaks." ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
At 11:48 PM 6/8/98 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Scott Mace wrote:
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite...
And if they're going to sell products based on gated, they should be paying royalties to the Gated Consortium...but why should the average ISP that wants to try some of the features of gated 4.x be forced to put down a big chunk of change? Many ISPs will have the attitude "if I have to spend X on gated, and still pay for the hardware and figure out the software, I'll just hand the money to Cisco and have one company to point fingers at if it doesn't work or breaks."
Actually, I'll just use 3.5.9 and point my corporate fingers at MERIT if it doesn't work, or breaks. Further, if I have run-rime problems I may point legal fingers that way, as well. Flemming *has* a point, since GateD is NSF funded, it shouldn't be for-profit. I guarantee that my tax dollars are already paying for it. Why should I pay extra? ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
However how would you like NSF to require larger funding then they already get because gated goes for free. cjm
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Roeland M.J. Meyer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 2:31 AM To: Jon Lewis Cc: Scott Mace; brad; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: $110,000 for Gated Source Code
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Scott Mace wrote:
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite...
And if they're going to sell products based on gated, they should be paying royalties to the Gated Consortium...but why should
At 11:48 PM 6/8/98 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: the average ISP
that wants to try some of the features of gated 4.x be forced to put down a big chunk of change? Many ISPs will have the attitude "if I have to spend X on gated, and still pay for the hardware and figure out the software, I'll just hand the money to Cisco and have one company to point fingers at if it doesn't work or breaks."
Actually, I'll just use 3.5.9 and point my corporate fingers at MERIT if it doesn't work, or breaks. Further, if I have run-rime problems I may point legal fingers that way, as well. Flemming *has* a point, since GateD is NSF funded, it shouldn't be for-profit. I guarantee that my tax dollars are already paying for it. Why should I pay extra? ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
Chris: NSF does not fund us. We have been self funding since September of 1996. Sorry to disappoint you. Merit still releases the code free because we have an "old-fashion" committment to the Internet. Sue Hares ============= However how would you like NSF to require larger funding then they already get because gated goes for free. cjm
Roeland: Please note that GateD is not publically funded. It is not received any money since GateD transferred to Merit in September of 1996. Please see my earlier message as to the other facts. Again, commercial companies ("money" grubbing" just like yours) are paying to enhance the good of the Internet. I would appreciate your getting your facts straight rather than continue to rave incorrectly. You are welcome to complain but ***please*** stop next time and get your facts straight. We have a low enough signal to noise ratio on nanog without any additions. Many of our Gold member corporations want to try to provide "entry" level ISP memberships. We still are considering if we can continue to support (***without NSF funding) the changes you want so your "3.5.9" will work for linux and other OS. So, please complain on. It's a free country and a free internet. However, please.. please check your facts. Susan Hares Director Merit GateD Consortium ==================================== Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:31:00 -0700 To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net> From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> Subject: Re: $110,000 for Gated Source Code Cc: Scott Mace <smace@intt.ORG>, brad <brad@poofy.tbn.tm>, nanog@merit.edu Actually, I'll just use 3.5.9 and point my corporate fingers at MERIT if it doesn't work, or breaks. Further, if I have run-rime problems I may point legal fingers that way, as well. Flemming *has* a point, since GateD is NSF funded, it shouldn't be for-profit. I guarantee that my tax dollars are already paying for it. Why should I pay extra? ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! Your note for fun!! =====================
Many of our Gold member corporations want to try to provide "entry" level ISP memberships. We still are considering if we can continue to support (***without NSF funding) the changes you want so your "3.5.9" will work for linux and other OS.
So Sue, when I or another member of the community contributes the fixes for Gated to make it work on alternative platforms and also fix bugs, will you commit to any level of incorporation of those changes ? Will you make sure that they only go into releases which are publicly available ? No. And the reasons for that are purely commercial - in the first case the question asked is "will is increase sales ?" and in the second case "will this decrease our market share ?". The issue at the heart of this is that a >product< that was developed with US goverment money (and I am not a US citizen or resident, so what do I care ?) and with the contributions of many people outside of either the original organisation or now Merit have been taken over by a commercial entity. The code for gated that is in the public archives is still available, but is static, an because of the distribution licenses on it, cannot be altered, maintained or distributed by anyone else - and so Merit's monopoly becomes almost a forgone conclusion. This discussion is getting very cyclic - let's leav Merit alone on this and learn from our mistakes. Regards, -- Peter Galbavy Knowledge Matters Ltd http://www.knowledge.com /http://www.wonderland.org/ http://www.literature.org/
There is ONLY (ONLY) two well-debugged and wideworld checked router implementation now - first is CISCO IOS, second is GATED. First is checked over million CISCOs, second was checked by MERIT's back-bone, by a lot of ISP who used gated for their host-based routers, and now by those vendors who implemented gated into their routers. I do not think it's an excellent product (through nothing is excellent in the Internet), but in comparation to the other implementation it's out of competition for now (remember a lot of Internet bums caused by Wellfleet? RIP broadcast storms over the inter-sea links caused by Annex? And so on...). Through the world is changed every day. On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Scott Mace wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 02:03:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Mace <smace@intt.ORG> To: brad <brad@poofy.tbn.tm> Cc: rmeyer@mhsc.com, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: $110,000 for Gated Source Code
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite...
Scott
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
I agree with Alex. People don't seem to realize that GateD ran the NFSNET backbone for years. Now, the key difference is that was the Cornell version and now we have Merit enhancements and fixes some of which are quite important. The Cornell version is free, though I know there are bugs in it those bugs are documented. Some of the bugs are not *really* bugs -- most notorious to me is the issue of OSPF restart (change your BGP policy, HUP GateD and watch your entire OSPF cloud lurch under LSDB recalculate because one router restarted OSPF). Merit fixed GateD to avoid this problem by redoing the OSPF code. That work was funded by the GateD Consortium, which is where your $10k goes. So take your choice: Cornell Gated for free with some fixes over what ran the NSFNET, or Merit GateD with some real improvements for pay unless you get a research license to play with it. Dana Hudes Graphnet Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
There is ONLY (ONLY) two well-debugged and wideworld checked router implementation now - first is CISCO IOS, second is GATED. First is checked over million CISCOs, second was checked by MERIT's back-bone, by a lot of ISP who used gated for their host-based routers, and now by those vendors who implemented gated into their routers. I do not think it's an excellent product (through nothing is excellent in the Internet), but in comparation to the other implementation it's out of competition for now (remember a lot of Internet bums caused by Wellfleet? RIP broadcast storms over the inter-sea links caused by Annex? And so on...).
Through the world is changed every day.
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Scott Mace wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 02:03:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Mace <smace@intt.ORG> To: brad <brad@poofy.tbn.tm> Cc: rmeyer@mhsc.com, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: $110,000 for Gated Source Code
I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing protocol suite...
Scott
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Hi, I would like to clarify that GateD worked on totally different NSFNET backbone. What used to be NSFNET backbone now could be compared to 'Net edges in terms of traffic, number of routes and complexity of policies. That doesn't say that GateD wouldn't work in today's backbone at all. Probably there will be some problems if you run it as-is in the core. Many start-ups are working on scaling and shaping GateD as well as some other off-the-shelf IP stacks. And we shall see who'll successed. -- Gregory Mirsky Bay Networks, Inc. Direct: 978-916-3772 600 Technology Park Drive Fax: 978-670-8760 Billerica, MA 01821 E-mail: gmirsky@baynetworks.com
I agree with Alex. People don't seem to realize that GateD ran the NFSNET backbone for years. Now, the key difference is that was the Cornell version and now we have Merit enhancements and fixes some of which are quite important. The Cornell version is free, though I know there are bugs in it those bugs are documented. Some of the bugs are not *really* bugs -- most notorious to me is the issue of OSPF restart (change your BGP policy, HUP GateD and watch your entire OSPF cloud lurch under LSDB recalculate because one router restarted OSPF). Merit fixed GateD to avoid this problem by redoing the OSPF code. That work was funded by the GateD Consortium, which is where your $10k goes.
So take your choice: Cornell Gated for free with some fixes over what ran the NSFNET, or Merit GateD with some real improvements for pay unless you get a research license to play with it.
Dana Hudes Graphnet
At 01:35 AM 6/8/98 +0000, brad wrote:
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries.
MHSC prefers open-source whenever we can get it and prefer to run reference-standard code. This is why we run sendmail v8.8.8, qpopper, BIND, and others.
I see no need for open source when it is quite obvious you do not understand anything that you are compiling.
Before inserting your foot further into your insulting mouth, visit my personal web-site. We also have a couple of PhD CS's around here somewhere, oh yeah, they're working on paid-for commercial projects. How much money have you stolen from the NSF to-date?
We are a Caldera VAR and our servers are built up from Caldera Open Linux Standard edition, with about 30 add-ons <groan>. We *do* have BRU, Netscape, and other commercial binaries that have been bought, but not before attempting to find acceptable reference-standards. We have also provided DewPoint/Caldera with input towards an Enterprise Server distribution for Linux.
Linux.. the choice of a gnutered generation.
Bigotry and snobry, a sure sign of insecurity and penus envy. What's the matter, didn't get laid last week-end?
Anyway, we've applied for an ASN and ran into the BGP4 requirement. Ergo, we were looking for the reference-standard BGP4 implementation, which is GateD. We (I) was *very* surprised at the attitude exhibited at <http://www.gated.org>. Very much anti-commercial. But, that does not matter to me as I have $other$ things to worry about (Paying the rent around here is one of them <sigh>). Ergo, having run *that* trail to ground, I posted a query here in NANOG, that Dean Anderson, Shane Wright, Craig Labovit, and others have answered.
Well, you can probably write your own BGP implementation in about a month. This would cost you considerably less than $110k assuming a conservative valuation of your time ($4.25-$5.00/hr).
Buddy boy, you can't afford me <sheesh>!
I now have gated v3.5.9, for Linux, and am building it now. I'll probably run into trouble, as I do with most things that don't have a configure script, or have an otherwise non-standard build process (Why is it that *only* the academic originated stuff is such a PITA? <sigh>).
LINUX#make sh: make: command not found LINUX#Ihatethesefuckingcomputersasdf3252r23t2g sh: Ihatethesefuckingcomputersasdf3252r23t2g: command not found LINUX#goddamn these academic types etc..
Jeez, you can't even spell "damned" right. Also, in that context God is capitalized. Now, if Bradly wants to really play with something easy, install Apache-SSL.mod-perl on a Linux box. Or anything else with a configure script. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
<brad>
I see no need for open source when it is quite obvious you do not understand anything that you are compiling.
<roeland>
How much money have you stolen from the NSF to-date?
<brad>
Linux.. the choice of a gnutered generation.
<roeland>
Bigotry and snobry, a sure sign of insecurity and penus[sic] envy. What's the matter, didn't get laid last week-end?
Can we dispense with the pleasantries and get back on-topic? :) -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 22:00:45 -0700 "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote: Oh please. What you purchase from the GateD consortium is much more than just a peice of software. If you don't like it I hear Cisco do a BGP4 capable router for well over $10,000USD. [and you only get one of those]. There is a freely available version which doesn't have all the bells and whistles but functions very well and you have the source code for that. If you want to add to it, do what everyone else does and add it yourself or pay the consortium fees, As I understand it you would fit into the Service membership level which is USD12,000 for the first year and USD10,000 for additional years. Hardly a bank buster, it would cost you a great deal more to do this with Cisco or anyother vendor. [You did actually ask the consortium about their licenses din't you?]. Regards, Neil.
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries.
-- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD-1.3.2 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
Roeland: Please refer to www.gated.org to the membership pages. I think your facts are slightly out of wack. GateD has not been NSF funded for 2.5 years, and it still has public code. Perhaps you've not check the web pages for a while and I should refresh your memory on a few things: 1) Public code - which you are enjoying?? The public code is being funded by the "money grubbing" commercial licenses you so denigrated. Had you asked instead of flaming publically, the answer is "start-ups" should apply. There is a small commercial license which attempts to cut the fee for start-ups. We are also considering ways to try to afford small ISPs. I cannot complete these offers (for all those who have asked as well) until I finish negotating some budget issues. You are welcome to send back 3.5.9. I urge you to submit a redistribution license or to discontinue using 3.5.9. The redistribution license is "of course" free. Shane's salary is payed by the commercial/"money grubbing" arm. I don't mind complaints, but public complaints which are mis-informed are like bad propaganda - I must publically comment on them. So, please next time contact us before commenting publically. My phone number is (734)936-2095 and the Merit phone number is (734)764-9430. We try to address all "free" requests as quickly as possible. You will "of course" understand that our "paying" members come first. You may lobby for "NSF" funding in which case we will answer "free" requests as NSF requests. 2) Linux configuration The linux configuration you see is under: /gated-pub/src/configs/linux-2.0 linux-README linux-patch_ip.h Please refer to this configuration and readme to see if you can indeed follow the instructions or if they need to be augmented for your **version** of linux. 3) Membership fees - $110,000 I'm not sure where you got your facts. The gold membership is the most expensive of the options. Gold membership is for members who wish to support the "free" version you are enjoying. Or perhaps you clicked the first button on a long page of membership fees. Perhaps reading a bit further might give a few more facts. 3-a) Gold membership 1st - $110,000 is the fee for a first "gold" membership, not a commercial membership nor a service membership. It includes membership in both Unicast and Multicast product lines as well as the ability for Merit staff to spend up to 6 months training two people at Merit's site. The 2nd years paymet is $45,000 for again 2 product lines and up to 6 months of training two people on site. $15,000 of the 1st year's $110,00 and the 2nd year's $45,000 is for this training. 3-b) Commercial membership We charge $50,000 for the 1st years membership and $15,000/year there after for each membership. The $50,000 pays for our development of new code, and the $15,000 is a maintenance fee. I suspect that this is in-line with an application not a full routing suite. For start-ups, we charge $40,000 for the 1st year membershiop and $15,000/year thereafter for each membership. 3-c) Service memberships Service Memberships are $25,000/1st year, $10,000/2nd - nth year Small Service Memberships are $12,000/ 1styear, $10,000 2nd -nth year 3-d) New membership categories We are attempting to finalize this year's budget. (We've been working on negotiations related to the budget for 2-3 months.) Once these negotiations are completed, we hope to be able to offer some scholarships to further the GateD work. Once the budget negotiations are completed, we will also look to being able to pursue our work to try to get newer GateD versions into the hands of linux, netbsd and freebsd folks. 4) Complaints - please continue So, Roeland - please complain on. Complaints are the strength of a free society and a free internet. However, your complaints would be more enlightening if you had your facts correct. Please check your facts and your information. Please ask for help on the mail groups such as gated-people@merit.edu. Sue Hares Director Merit GateD Consortium skh@merit.edu (734)936-2095
It's unbelievable, the amount of e-mail I got from this. The intent was to reduce, not enhance. For those that think this is off-topic to operations I ask, "What is more pertinent to operations than a decision on which implementation of BGP4 to run?" Yes, we are considering Cisco routers. Yes, our ASN was approved by ARIN. Yes, Linux is indeed production ready, as far as we're concerned. But, we're only a VAR, what do we know? Yes, we're a conmmercial site. Yes, we are a GRS-site (Take that up with me in DOMAIN-POLICY). Now, can we get to the point? I suggest that those, who take these things personally, re-read what I have paraphrased herein and let's get past the name-calling. The issue I'm raising is, what to use for BGP4, in production. At 10:00 PM 6/7/98 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries.
I now have gated v3.5.9, for Linux, and am building it now.
Again, this is not a rant at the gated folks. I frankly wasn't much surprised. I thank all those who helped me obtain the sources for gated-3.5.9.
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
paraphrased herein and let's get past the name-calling. The issue I'm raising is, what to use for BGP4, in production.
Whatever your router supports. Talk to Ascend, Bay, Cisco, Jupiter and Pluris and ask them about their backbone router products. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
paraphrased herein and let's get past the name-calling. The issue I'm raising is, what to use for BGP4, in production.
Did I say Jupiter!? Tsk, tsk. I meant Juniper of course. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
participants (13)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
brad -
Chris MacFarlane -
Gregory Mirsky -
Jon Lewis -
Michael Dillon -
Mr. Dana Hudes -
Neil J. McRae -
Peter Galbavy -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Scott Mace -
Steve Sobol -
Susan Hares