North American Network Operators Group

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

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

  • From: Adrian Chadd
  • Date: Tue Oct 26 12:57:34 1999

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

> Hmm, do you remember all mistakes done in the domain data base? If someone
> lost your domain, you can at least look on the WWW page or sent a mail; if
> someone lost your routing, you can turn off all your equipment and go
> fishing /and you can close your business/. And remember, we are going to
> the VoIP telephony - in some cases you even can not call them...
> No, any attempt to remove route objects (not the maintaners) due to some
> fee's means the death of the RA-DB as the route-registry.

VoIP is all well and good, but if you don't have an alternate method
of contacting people besides your (Vo)IP network, you have bigger issues
at hand than the RADB deleting your routing entries due to non-payment.

I for one am an advocate for the "no pay, no change/support" policy - if
you don't pay, then you don't get support (past some basic email support)
and you can't change many/all details. Australia's space went
that way during the free->paid transition a while back.

My 2c,


Adrian Chadd					Systems Engineer
<[email protected]>			Versatel Telecom BV
						Amsterdam, The Netherlands
	"Music in the soul can be heard by the universe" - Lao Tsu