too many routes

[Jeff Williams]

Joseph,

Joseph T. Klein wrote:
> 
> A system must be established that will NOT keep new entities from entering the market.
> I would rather see a world with 30 or 40 backbones, vs. a world with one.

  Yep!  I have been saying this for some time now (2 or 3 years).  
> 
> The concept of upstream providers providing address space  does not work for
> organizations seeking to establish national or international networks.

  It sure doesn't.  And is the fundamental problem with the "Upstream
Provider" system along with the RFC's that go along with this 
method (Rfc2050, Rfc 1918, RFC1917).
> 
> If I am to build a network to 5 major meet points and contract with UUNET, and
> MCI for transit, why should I put up with the InetrNIC or ARIN telling me
> that I must get a block of addresses from an upstream??! How the do you expect
> to establish new backbones without a loophole for new providers to get a /19
> and an ASN? Even to anty up to do this, we are in the 1 Million $$$ range.

  YEs!  I have been trying to get this across for some time now.  Glad
you are on board with common sense.
> 
> Come on registry people ... give the open market model a chance.

  Don't count on it.  We shall have to build our own I fear.
> 
> --- On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:41:50 -0400 (EDT)  Jon Lewis <jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net> wrote:
- snip -
> --
> From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net
> mailto:jtk at titania.net                     Sent: 02:53:06 CST/CDT 09/10/97
> 
> If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology,
> vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction
> and march collectively into the future.
>                       -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com