nanog mailing list archives
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
From: "Alan B. Clegg" <abc () gateway com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:47:32 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote: [lack of cooperation example removed]
This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere in the text. This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
I agree, and do not support it in any way (please, don't flame *ME*) I just have this ..er.. funny feeling that cooperation among small ISPs that are fighting with everyone else for that smaller and smaller piece of the pie is not going to be the easiest thing to make work. I agree.. creating small groups of ISPs that cooperate on addressing in geographic areas connecting to major service points would be the best thing in the world. If we could agree to cooperate, we would not have the quagmire that we have now, agreed? Business nature (and dog-eat-dog economics) force non-cooperation at the low (and high) end. Middle men are left to themselves. -abc \ Alan B. Clegg Just because I can \ Internet Staff does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc. \ <http://www.gateway.com/>
Current thread:
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Alan B. Clegg (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 16)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 16)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Stan Barber (Feb 17)