Re: IPv6 traffic stats
> The AS count might also be of interest - 15% of the > non-stub IPv4 addresses (AS's that offer transit to > other ASes) also originate IPv6 prefixes. How did this 15% change over the past 4 years and/or past 18 months? What percentage would that be of the total AS count? Thanks, Peter --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats > To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org > Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:08 PM > I've been looking at this as well and reported on the > relative amount of IPv6 traffic over the past 4 years at the > most recent NANOG > (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-10-13-ipv6-deployment.pdf) > > in recent times I am also seeing 0.5% of hosts preferring > to use IPv6 to access a dual-stacked site - the good news it > that this number has risen sharply in the past 18 months. > The not-so-good news it thats its still a bloody small > number! > > The AS count might also be of interest - 15% of the > non-stub IPv4 addresses (AS's that offer transit to > other ASes) also originate IPv6 prefixes. > > >Geoff > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
> If someone calls up for help with a > configuration problem, that may be six month's of > profits from that customer eaten up in the cost of answering the call. That is because the current Internet pricing has been screwed-up from the start. LD settlements between telcos are fully applicable to ISPs but have never been instituted. Internet has been subsidised for years by the local access but now as wireline declines everybody starts feeling the pain. Usage based billing and inter-ISP settlements start showing up lately and they fit well for the Internet. Otherwise transit providers as well as heavy users rip all the benefits. Peter Sherbin --- John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, March 30, 2006 19:30 +1200 Andrew > McGregor > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Your ISP charges you 9 times as much for IPv4 > addresses as > >> they do for bandwidth? I'd recommend switching > ISPs. All > >> the ones I've seen charge a > >> small premium for additional IP space, but it's > never more > >> than about a 50% premium. > > > > Not if you don't live in the US. There are no > options here > > that are at all cheap. Usually you get a flat > "we don't do > > that". And they don't do v6 either. > > If it makes you feel better (it probably won't), in > much of the > US, the story from the ISPs goes like this: > > * We don't do that on our residential service, if > you > want _any_ IPv4 addresses assigned to you, you need > to > buy the commercial service. > > * The commercial service costs around ten times as > much > as the residential one for similar bandwidth _less_ > service (often no free email, free web hosting, > "user > protection" software tools, etc.) > > * If you want more than one address on the > commercial > service, you will pay some small incremental charge > for > it. But the real incremental charge starts at > address > number 1 and is tied up with the "type of service" > shift. > > However, we need to keep something else in mind, > which > Iljitsch's note hints at. If I'm an ISP trying to > sell a > low-end service to low-end customers at a low (but > still > profitable) price, I need to cut customer support > costs to the > absolute minimum. If someone calls up for help with > a > configuration problem, that may be six month's of > profits from > that customer eaten up in the cost of answering the > call. To > that sort of ISP, NATs, and ISP-supplied routers > that support > NATs, have a _huge_ advantage, which is that all > supported > customer LANs are identical -- same design, same > exact internal > addresses, etc.That is very important from a > support > standpoint -- length of calls, skill levels > required, ability to > construct clear FAQs and avoid calls entirely, and > so on. > > For the community, there are elements of "you get > what you pay > for" in this. And, for the ISPs, unless we figure > out ways to > provide the same level of support convenience with > public > addresses, we will certainly see NATs with IPv6 as > well as IPv4. > > john > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was:
> Immediately blowing 2^125 addresses is absurd. We want to network the world inside and around us and then automate it. IPv6 is timely and suits well both purposes. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Cridland writes: > > > I do understand your argument, and you're correct > in all its > > assertions, but not the conclusion. I suspect > that's the case for > > everyone at this point. > > Not as long as I still see people claiming that 128 > bits will provided > 2^128 addresses _and_ that it can still be divided > into multiple bit > fields. > > > You state, loosely, that 128 bits will not > realistically yield > > 2**128 addresses, which is entirely true. > > Yes. > > > It's been pointed out that IPv6 wasn't designed > for that, instead, > > it was designed to yield 2**64 subnets, and even > so, it's > > acknowledged that a considerable amount of that > space will be > > wasted. People have agreed with this, but pointed > out that the > > "subnet" level can be moved down, since we're only > using an eighth > > of the available address space. > > I don't think many people appreciate just how > quickly such policies > can exhaust an address space--mainly because they > keep emphasizing > that 2^n addresses are available in n bits, > apparently oblivious to > the multiple factors that will waste most of the > addresses. > > > Your conclusion, however, is that we should be > switching to a > > zero-wastage allocation mechanism preferably based > on variable > > bitlength addresses. > > That is one option. Another is to stop trying to > plan the entire > future of IP addressing today. As I've said, just > adding one more bit > to 32-bit addresses would hold the Internet together > for years to > come. Immediately blowing 2^125 addresses is > absurd. > > > In response to this, several people have commented > that this > > is unworkable using both current hardware and any > hardware > > predicted to be available within the next few > years. I don't > > know about that, but I'm prepared to accept that > opinion. > > I'll accept the opinion, but as long as it remains > opinion, I can > continue to assert the contrary. I don't see any > insurmountable > obstacle that would prevent this type of > implementation. Indeed, I > should think it would greatly simplify routing. > > > There's an additional unanswered question your > argument has, which is > > whether the - very real - issues you're pointing > out with prefix > > based allocations will cause actual operational > problems within a > > timeframe short enough for anyone to worry over > for a few decades, > > and - a related issue - would these problems hit > sufficiently quickly > > that a replacement for IPv6 couldn't be developed > in time? > > In this respect I'm going by past history. As I've > said, engineers > routinely underestimate capacity and overestimate > their own ability to > foresee the future, often with expensive and > defect-ridden results. > The Internet gets bigger all the time, and the cost > of these mistakes > will be astronomically high in the future--more than > high enough to > justify changing this mindset. I'm just trying to > limit the damage by > suggesting changes as early as possible. > > Has anyone else noticed that the simplest standards > tend to last the > longest, and that complex, committee-designed > standards are often > obsolete even before the 6000-page specifications > are printed and > bound? I see that SMTP is still around, but I don't > see too many > people using X.400. I see people writing code in C, > but not in Ada. > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
> FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because > it lets them do what they want without paying more > or getting permission. Cause I think thats really > all they want from any solution. ISP fees for additional addresses just leveraging an opportunity to extract a few more dollars. The opportunity stems out of: 1) a notion of leased addresses, i.e. addresses have to be returned back when a customer leaves ISP 2) a percieved scarcity of IPv4 addresses. Overall it goes all the way back to IANA allocation policy preserving the internet hierarchy. In theory IPv6 provides enough addresses for everyone. How to make sure that addresses are not wasted? Immediate answer - get addresses through your LIR. Apparently quite a lot of people would want to become LIR for themselves. At some point we may start considering e.g. UN sponsored IP address registrars allocating x-amount of IP addresses to each individual and establishment on the planet and managing such allocation. Peter Sherbin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > > AT&T used to charge for any telephone color other > than black, even > > though the cost of producing a telephone was the > same no matter what > > color it was. > > AT&T also used to charge for additional private IP > addresses. I remember one company had a bussiness > package with them and was also leasing a router that > came locked down and configured to use > 192.168.0.0/27 on the LAN. When this company wanted > more IP's internally AT&T wanted to charge them more > to "upgrade" them to a 192.168.0.0/24 > > > John- > > I agree that no IPv6 solution involving customers > giving up the (percieved?) freedom of NAT for a > construct that has them suckling from their ISP's > tit again is really going to go over well. > > One small note also about the ISP supplied modem - > at least in my experience in Los Angeles - the basic > modems I've seen act solely as a pass-through (they > have no configuration menus -etc). I know today > modem/home networking in a box devices are being > pushed (because the ISP's charge extra for it), but > the basic end user is getting no bells and whistles > -(at least with SBC, Verizon, and Comcast). > > FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because > it lets them do what they want without paying more > or getting permission. Cause I think thats really > all they want from any solution. > > nick> ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> it certainly will be interesting to see what an IP> address is really worth. It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite universe of 0 and 1. The actual cost driver here is a need for an operator (e.g. Postal Service or ISP) to maintain a list of all existing addresses to be able to provide their services. Technically IP address is an enabler of a service rather than the service itself such as e.g. delivery of a message from A to B. As such addresses should not be sold or rented, they just come with devices. IP addresses, in particular IPv6 ones, is more a common good that we all share such as air rather then an item produced for sale by someone who incurres costs during production. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:> The problem is that nothing matches historical growth, because it> contains elements that have proven resistant against modeling.That's the way I see it myself.> Until that time, I'll continue to assume 2010 - 2015 with> 2012 as the most likely moment for IPv4 to run out.In the big scheme of things, I actually don't see what it changes toknow the exact date now anyway.> We only get to cry wolf so many times.And we have cried a lot over the last 10 years (including doompredictions over Y2K). As of today I don't see people doing anythinguntil they actually see the wolf. And I think they won't even doanything then until the wolf proves to be a big annoyance, which remainsto be seen.> When we run out of IPv4 space obviously very many people will> have IPv4 addresses and they'll want to keep using them.Indeed. And in the case of the US (and to a lesser extent otherindustrialized countries) 3 to 4 addresses per capita are enough for avery long time. It is possible that the US will remain a v4 dealforever, as many Americans are not interested in what happens elsewherein the first place.To me, the interesting thing is not WHEN it will happen; it's WHAThappens when it does and what we can do about it.> There is however and interesting policy question: should we> allow IPv4 addresses to be sold? Some people are in favor of> this, but I don't see the upside of formally allowing it.> (People are going to do it to some degree anyway.)I think it's too early to have good decision arguments about what to doabout this. The wealthy (meaning: can afford to pay $10/month for anaddress) will have an address no matter what. The supply is limited butso is the demand, it certainly will be interesting to see what an IPaddress is really worth.My take on it is that we have to wait a year or so and see how the blackmarket develops and how bad it is. Generally speaking, the addressesalready are where the money also is; unless dramatic socio-economicchanges happen I don't see much movement there. The demand is not howmany people want IP addresses; the demand is how many people wantaddresses times how much they can spend on one. Also, some governmentsmight actually like the double-NAT idea, as it somehow restricts freeflow of information and might appear more controllable.> Noel Chiappa wrote:> Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the> marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior> solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6.I don't think the market decided it was "superior". The market decidedit was good enough, cheaper, and easier.> Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the> IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort> of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6.> I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4> addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but> there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force> them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be> surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround.I agree with Noel here.Michel___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
>You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic >way and you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, > with very simple routing. But of course that won't be done. In fact some people are doing this today within their networks. IPv6 marveles ability to "address every millonth of a second of arc inlatitude and longitude on the planet" drives the entire excitment and funding. Private networks aside IP address allocation maybe needs to be done on a strictly geographical basis in a politically neutral fashion, e.g. via UN sponsored RIR / LIR. We may need an RFC on how to fund IANA activities through UN allowing "free" allocation of addresses to any interested individual or establishment. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Peter Sherbin writes:> It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes> naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new> device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite> universe of 0 and 1.That would only be true if IP addresses were geographically assigned,which they aren't.You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic wayand you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, with verysimple routing. But of course that won't be done.> The actual cost driver here is a need for an operator (e.g.> Postal Service or ISP) to maintain a list of all existing addresses> to be able to provide their services.Not necessarily. If the addressing is strictly geographic--naddresses for each area of m square metres on the planet--routingwould be very simple and wouldn't require much in the way of tables.With 78 bits, you can address every millonth of a second of arc inlatitude and longitude on the planet. That's an area of about 0.00095square millimetres.___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
Hi, > Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is, > IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation > policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind. This is a proper model which should remain this way with a little fix. IETF engineering effort is funded (indirectly) by the employers of the engineers. RIRs administrative work is funded through membership and allocation fees, which essentially equals selling of IP addresses. Because the Internet is a shared resourse its enablers such as IP addresses are not for sale but rather for a free assignment to everyone. RIRs function should be funded through a politically / economically neutral body, e.g. UN. Technically the current way of RIR cost recovery hinders the network neutrality. Peter --- Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:03:22PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote: > > The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR > > policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not > > a deployment body. > > Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is, > IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation > policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind. > > For IPv6, this isn't a huge success story yet... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 > > SpaceNet AGMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPv6 calls for the new Internet
Yesterday at v6ops there was a clear statement of the problem: IPv6 calls for the new Internet architecture. We could start with basic requirements guiding us to what exactly to build. For example: - IP address locates a node enabling the Internet - IP address is not a private property - every system with a will (an individual or an entity) is entitled to a certain quota of permanent, provider independent IP addresses - the system is identified by its tax number - IP addresses are assigned for a life time of the system - when the system changes its tax number it returns current IP addresses and gets a new quota corresponding to the new tax number Next steps would be to figure out an independent mechanism for address management and a routing. Peter Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate Click now to apply http://yahoo.degrees.info ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys
> I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that people > have don't work. Some users seem always find a way to do harm with innocent things (a sort of a normal distribution, I guess). In the case of postal mail at least the post office has collected money. By the same token for a provider any paid e-mail including spam is a source of revenue. --- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > As is my usual practice, I asked the post office to hold my > > mail while I was away at IETF 67 (this is a standard service > > offered by the US Postal Service at no charge). I took some > > time off after, so when I finally picked up my mail, it was > > about 3 weeks worth. I received a plastic shopping bag full > > of mail, and after I sorted through it, I had several bills > > and a grand total of three other pieces, all of which were > > prearranged (an issue of QST, a newsletter, and an > > invitation). The rest of the bag was spam. > > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that people > have don't work. > > But if postal mail recipients could impose filters they would. > > And there is in point of fact an entire police force tracking down scam > artists > using the postal mail. > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys
> policies regarding cost and "authentication". In that regard, > snail-mail is not a very good analogy for e-mail discussions. The basic premise is all the same: user -> need to send -> delivery charge. Fee collector does not matter: US Post, UPS, FedEx, DHL, Purolator or ISP. --- "Nelson, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phillip Hallam-Baker writes... > > > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' > > schemes that people have don't work. > > I'm not so sure about that. The fact that there is a real cost > certainly changes the dynamics of unsolicited mail, as well as the > business model of the purveyors. Cost factors will not eliminate it, > but it might improve the "quality" of the offers and reduce the quantity > of messages. > > > But if postal mail recipients could impose filters they would. > > Indeed. > > > And there is in point of fact an entire police force tracking > > down scam artists using the postal mail. > > Right. > > One additional distinction is that most unsolicited mail in the US > (typically called junk mail) is mailed at discounted bulk postage rates. > In order to mail at bulk rates, an organization needs a permit from the > post office. This involves some level of "authentication". Of course, > mail sent at first class or second class postage rates can be sent > anonymously. However, I get very (very) few pieces of junk mail sent at > first or second class rates. It's all bulk rate mail. This is another > example of the cost of mailing driving the behavior set. > > A second distinction is that the US Postal System (in the US) is a > government sanctioned monopoly, and in many countries the postal system > is still a government agency. When you have a single entity acting as > the receiver of all outgoing mail, it makes it much easier to enforce > policies regarding cost and "authentication". In that regard, > snail-mail is not a very good analogy for e-mail discussions. > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys
Just recently NA providers have introduced an encrypted mail. It requires a PC client to encrypt the message. User retrieving the message does not need a client but requires a password. It cost about 100 a year per account. The product is in its early stage but some verticals show interest. It is interesting to see its impact on e-mail. E.g. user controls her sender/recipient list and filters out all others. --- David Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that > > people have don't work. > > It doesn't demonstrate any such thing. The physical junk mail I receive is > much more targeted to my family than spam is. I wouldn't bother with spam > filtering if I only got 5-10 junk emails per day. At 350-450 spams per > day, I can't afford not to wory about filters. > > In addition to postage, physical mail has significant production costs. > Some junk mail probably costs more than $1 per mail piece. Big incentive > to send it carefully. There is a very low production cost for spam, even > the legitimate retailers who send well designed electronic spam only have > design costs and no significant per piece cost. > > It is pure naviety to assert that increasing the cost of sending spam will > not reduce the amount sent. The operative word is REDUCE. Also note that > my choice of words was 'cost'. There are many ways to associate cost with > sending spam. > > It isn't a trivial technical problem to revise the electronic message > infrastructure to arrange for payment of postage but to assert that it > can't be done or wouldn't be deployed flys in the face of the relatively > short time frame for adoption of the WWW or IM. > > Do you truly believe that if a reliable alternative to the current email > infrastructure were available, which could operate in parallel with the > current infrastructure in which you got minimal unsolicited email, it > wouldn't be quickly adopted by major players? > > Dave Morris > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
> The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in > more > in a way that furthers ietf goals? E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards. IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. If IETF start charging for reading contributors' papers how much voluntary contribution such arrangement would generate? Is there a guarantee that a pre-paid content remains worth reading? Thanks, Peter --- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a topic on which everyone can have an opinion, hence many posts. > > Perhaps if there was a charge per post to an ietf mailing list? > > There is a serious point here though, Cerf, Postel and co have left us an > institution with a 60s flower power era business model and a 1990s > expectation of > quality of service. > > The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in > more > in a way that furthers ietf goals? > > We could adopt the nist model of franchising conformance testing, only with an > incremental fee on top paid to the ietf for use of the brand. > > The fee per item does not have to be very large to bring in a lot of cash. We > only > need five or so million a year. > > > > Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) > > -Original Message- > From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time > To: Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Charging I-Ds > > Melinda, > > I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion. > The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least > part of) your point. After all, the thought that someone > might be asked to work on an ID, and then - in addition to > volunteering their time to do the work - they then need to > pay (per iteration) for the privilege of submitting it is > utterly absurd. > > The whole idea of taxing volunteers is, as you said, > ghastly. > > But - while we're on the subject of volunteering - your > comment that reviews are at "no cost to the IETF" isn't quite > correct. As a well-known SciFi author used to say - > > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > - (or TANSTAAFL). The effort to find sufficient volunteers > to review documents is not a "no cost" exercise. > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > -Original Message- > > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM > > To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds > > > > On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two > > > members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth > > > review does not happen for random student-published I-D. > > > > There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer > > time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract > > the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, > > keep the systems up and running, etc. > > > > That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is > > ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more > > openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. > > > > Melinda > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
