Sprint's route filters and Europe

Wm. Prichard Jones jones at nsipo.arc.nasa.gov
Wed Jun 19 02:23:23 UTC 1996

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 at 6SigmaNets.com>

>From nanog-owner at merit.edu  Tue Jun 18 14:53:21 1996
Return-Path: <nanog-owner at merit.edu>
Received: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT) from merit.edu (RFC1413 sender merit.edu []) by nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (8.7.1/1.5) id OAA09938
Received: (from daemon at 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 []) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id NAA18340 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netguru.cts.com(really []) by mailhub.cts.com
	via smail with smtp
	id <m0uW4sw-000V85C at mailhub.cts.com>
	for <nanog at 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: < at mail.cts.com>
X-Sender: kwe at 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 at aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston)
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe at 6SigmaNets.com>
Subject: Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Sender: owner-nanog at 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
>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.


--- End of forwarded message from "Kent W. England" <kwe at 6SigmaNets.com>

More information about the NANOG mailing list