<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Mis-information

> >This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have
> >a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our
> >community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the
> >Ripe community.
> This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks
> paticipate in the IP pilot.

We (ie JANET/JIPS) intend to participate in the EMPB IP pilot. The reason
we're doing it is that we believe it's important to have high-quality
networks available for our users, and piloting is a necessary part of the
quality-assurance procedure.

This attitude is no different to our attitude to Ebone '92 -- we've been
happy to participate, and be active in the management and operational
work to get things sorted out. It's been a rewarding experience for us,
our users, and (I'd suggest) other members of the Ebone consortium.

I find it hard to see much difference between doing this and doing the
same for EMPB -- in both cases we see a reward for work invested. I'd
hope other networks connecting to EMPB participate in the pilot as well.
Otherwise there won't be much to pilot :-)

> >We have to pay twice, as the skills of the coumunity are not
> >used, and we have to pay the consultants on our taxes/ charges.
> You might have to pay for the consultants by your taxes if your
> organisation is part of COSINE, but NOT in charges for the EMPB.

It seems to me that it's a bit dangerous to start suggesting that one
IP network is a burden on the taxpayer, whilst another isn't. As Bruce
points out, EMPB charges aren't. Even a cursory inspection suggests that
substantial bits of the Ebone '92 infrastructure are publically funded,
at least originally. Nothing particularly wrong with that -- they've
been put to good use -- but it seems fairly silly to start this
particular line of discussion at this particular time.

Bob Day

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>