North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe

  • From: Wm. Prichard Jones
  • Date: Tue Jun 18 22:28:57 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" <[email protected]>

>From [email protected]  Tue Jun 18 14:53:21 1996
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT) from (RFC1413 sender []) by (8.7.1/1.5) id OAA09938
Received: (from [email protected]) by (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id NAA18345 for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id NAA18340 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from []) by
	via smail with smtp
	id <[email protected]>
	for <[email protected]>; Tue, 18 Jun 96 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
	(Smail-3.1.92 1996-Mar-19 #3 built 1996-Apr-21)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
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: [email protected] (Geoff Huston)
From: "Kent W. England" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
Cc: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
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" <[email protected]>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -