Re: ISPACs

Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Fri, 06 December 1996 07:50 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06793; 6 Dec 96 2:50 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05092; 6 Dec 96 2:50 EST
Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA07361 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:50:46 +1100
Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA03642; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA21566; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 22:49:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199612060649.WAA21566@chimp.jnx.com>
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: curtis@ans.net
CC: curtis@ans.net, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, metro@nlanr.net
In-reply-to: <199612060538.AAA18101@brookfield.ans.net> (message from Curtis Villamizar on Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:38:39 -0500)
Subject: Re: ISPACs

   I think that putting together RFCs that propose that ISDs pursue
   certain legal and financial arrangements is well outside the scope of
   the operations area and the IETF for that matter.  I don't see this as
   an allocation issue or a technical issue wrt policy routing.  As is
   applies to operating a small provider and a potential means to
   cooperate with other small providers by forming some sort of
   consortium it maybe could be considered an operations area item.  I
   think what you have here is out of scope.

Curtis,

I think you miss the point.  The goal is to solve technical problems
(aggregation, renumbering).  The side effects are legal and financial and
we get blasted if we _don't_ discuss them.  Years of CIDR bashing has made
us, uh, somewhat sensitive to this.  So this time, we're trying to discuss
those issues up front.

Tony