From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Aug 15 13:02:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA16303 for isp-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA16296 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA21068; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970815160142.00ea5e20@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:01:45 -0400 To: michael@blueneptune.com From: dennis Subject: Re: Multi-homed - Load Balancing - No Single Point of Failure Cc: isp@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 10:50 AM 8/15/97 -0700, you wrote: > >> Gated is now pay-to-play if you want any of the newer features. See >> www.gated.org for details. Basically it is going to cost you at least >> $12,000 for the first year, and then $10,000 PER YEAR after that. That is >> not trivial for the small to mid-size ISP. That reduces significantly the >> cost savings of chosing a PC over a cisco. You'll survive for a while with whats available, and eventually it will be a marketing opportunity for someone. What they are doing is very questionable and I'm sure someone will challenge it...taking publically funded code and making it commercial is one thing, but prohibiting others from doing it without paying a hefty fee is clearly challengable. Im sure once a market arises there will be some sparks regarding gated. > >Has anybody been working on a free replacement for GateD? It's a wonderful >product and all, but IMHO the current pricing scheme flies against the spirit >of the net. (At least the old spirit anyway, it unfortunately -does- seem >to embody the new spirit. :-/) Its a shitty product, but a major undertaking, which is why its pretty much the only game in town. Once the pubdom stuff becomes less useful Im sure that others will pop up....its really not been worth it with gated around. > >I have nothing against Merit wanting to do what their doing. If it pays >the research bills, gets things done, and their customers/partners are >happy, then more power to them. But it would be really cool if there were >a free version available, with active work in progress. Routing protocols >are far from my forte, so I doubt that I'd get involved directly in such >a project, although I would help where I could. But surely there are >others out there who feel similarly, who -are- technically up to doing this? >(Yeah, and I know, who have the -time- for that much pro bono work...) I'd want to tear apart the interface, because its much too general. There should be direct routing info calls (rather than interpreting all the flags and such as it does now). It may be something that we could do, and even offer support for it, but the lawyers need to look at it first. Its not worth it.....yet. Dennis