North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: ** ANNOUNCE -- New RADB Fee Structure **

  • From: Joe Shaw
  • Date: Tue Oct 26 11:20:38 1999

Right.  In going over my Qwest contract I signed last week, it's required
that I have maintainer objects in the RADB in order to get my BGP
announcements listened to by Qwest since they build their filters out of
it.  I had no problem with that on Friday when I signed, but upon hearing
that unpaid objects would be removed, I'm a bit worried now.  If Merit can
promise that they won't make a single mistake and accidentally remove
someone's objects for non-payment, then I'm all for it and don't mind
paying for the service.  But seeing as how humans make mistakes, I can
only guess that it will happen at least once, and it could be highly
annoying if it happens often or to the right maintainer object.

I concur with you.  It's much safer to just block all changes to objects
that haven't been paid for instead of outright deleting them.  Not to cast
aspersions upon Merit, but the last thing we need is a registry that makes
mistakes like NSI has done to many in the past.

Joseph W. Shaw - [email protected]    
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:

> I just have written (through I am out of this problems) - I can't discuss
> the fee idea, but any attempt to REMOVE something unpaid can destroy the
> internet at whole... This days a lot of filters over the world are built
> from this data bases, and a lot of networks can (simple) forgot to pay...
> The alternative idea should be to block the future changes for the unpaid
> objects - at least it's safe and can not destroy the network.
> Alex. /I am in Russia now, and don't bother about RA-DB fee, but I am
> bother about the Internet stability/.