Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:02:22 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@grumpy.net.na> To: jay@result.com (Jay Thorne) Cc: michael@memra.com, IAP@VMA.CC.ND.EDU, inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, os2-isp@dental.stat.com Subject: Re: Internet MELTS DOWN AT END 1996?? Message-ID: <199609142202.XAA04224@linux.lisse.NA> In-Reply-To: <ae601b3c0602100408be@[204.191.202.153]> from "Jay Thorne" at Sep 14, 96 01:34:39 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jay, > The thing that pisses me off the _most_? Idiots who write _about_ > tech the same way that the writers for 'Baywatch' write about search > and rescue operations. Ie, the "Internet Meltdown" article was the > same level of sensationalized fiction. But he is right in some ways, isn't he? I have had a very interesting dogfight some three years ago with an eminent chap from Orgeon about Autonomous System Numbers and who assigns IP numbers to independent countries. Now he is a member of the engineering task force and all, but I maintained that national networks in such countries should get the numbers from NIC. I also think we should get our own ASN, but this is much, much less of an issue and can be easily resolved once technically required so I never pursued this line of argument. However they feel that either we should get them from RIPE (why Europe's NIC is supposed to do this for Africa is beyond my and others' comprehension, not withstanding the fact that those RIPErs are very nice, helpful and extremely competent people) or and that was advanced stronger that we should get the IP numbers from our access provider, currently the academic network in South Africa. Non withstanding the fact that that would require renumbering if we changed our access provider. It was already then said that the biggies would not route ASNs *BEHIND* ASNs connected to them, in other words if we got us one we'd not be routed. Now the reason advanced was: "Do you want to route packets, or what?" Then already I was quite irritated by the fact that those biggies send their staff to the IETF and so on and make the rules to suit themselves. The Internet is a non entity, legally speaking. In other words, it's not so that small developing countries, such as Namibia, and Lesotho which was the origin of the argument by the way, have to go on the knees and beg to have a multinational company allow us to connect. It just aint so. There is just no technical reason for this refusal to route. It is purely a financial matter, and multinational companies having a monopoly with their brigades of ruthless marketing and ligitation staff of course try to maximise profits. And of course they send their technical staff to IETF and write the rules the way they want. I maintain that those small networks allow the Internet to connect to us as much as we are allowed to connect to the Internet. *AND*, they can do whatever they want, once they start turning off non-customers, they will be hit with anti trust suits that will drive them out of business, or at least it will drive this nonsense out of their heads very, very quickly. The domain name court cases are examples in kind, they have just no leg to stand on. Nobody denies the problems we all face, and the fact that we must fix them somehow, very very urgently, but this must be done fairly. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Swakopmund State Hospital <el@lisse.NA> * | Resident Medical Officer Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 64 461503 (pager) 461005 (h) 461004 (f) Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Zone/Domain Contact for the NA-DOM Vice-Chairman, Board of Trustees, Namibian Internet Development Foundation, an Association not for Gain. NAMIDEF is the Namibian Internet Service Provider.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609142202.XAA04224>