🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Sep1.012847.29925@newshost.anu.edu.au> gih900@cruskit.aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston) writes:

>I don't think the current structure of the mail access program
>can adapt well to this.

>What is being pushed here ...

>From the AVCC:
>   b) it's user funded
>      => all external users should pay their way (in some fashion)

And this shouldn't change in the future.  It's the users who are changing
(a move away from big sites to single-person sites), but the cost structures
aren't changing to reflect this fact.

>From the "group of otherwise....."
>   a) we see some value in mail access, and want to connect to the network
>      => as long as its "cheap"

"Cheap" is an ill-defined term.  "Cheap" could be $50-$80 a month, instead of
a $1,000 "hit" each year.  It's the "big hit" that discourages many I think.
"I want to connect to AARNet".  "OK, that will be $1,000 to the AVCC, $1,500
to the local service provider ... oh, and that's payable yesterday".  "Well,
on second thoughts ..."

>   b) we want a network which can be used without limitation regarding
>      appropriate use
>      => a system analogous to a public utility operation

I don't think dropping all limitations is a good idea, but the current
acceptable use policy is very ill-defined.  What is valid "research use"?
Research into how far the limits can be pushed before getting in trouble? :-)
Even this thread itself has very little research value when put under the
microscope of what is considered "normal research".  If I was to only use
AARNet for legitimate research goals, as pertaining to my PhD topic, I'd hardly
ever use it.  If everyone was to "stick to the rules", the government would
be really breathing down our necks as to why they are spending so much money
on a network that no one uses.

>Now  I'm  open  to suggestions as to what is the next step here - 'cause right
>now the kludges which have lead to the acceptance of the uu.oz.au  domain  are
>very unstable from an AVCC perspective. 

The AVCC needs to decide on where AARNet is going in the future: whether it
will stay the domain of the universities and research organisations, or will
start to form a national Internet backbone for all Australians to use.  I'd
like to see the latter be the goal.  The former is just burying heads in the
sand: (a) because AARNet is already "almost there", so to speak, and (b) AARNet
will probably end up carrying "unwanted" traffic anyway, especially in regards
to news: how much of USENET conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy?  Not much.

Whether the end goal is to register 17 million individual MX's in the DNS, or
to register 100,000 organisation MX's in the DNS, recognition of Australia's
network future by the AVCC is needed.

I'm reluctant to go to a commercial provider to get a feed for BrisNet, rather
than go to one of the local unis, even if the commercial prices were cheaper,
because the uni is likely still to be there in 5-10 years time, and I don't
want to "sneak" BrisNet's traffic onto AARNet through a back door - I'd rather
be up-front and honest about it.

Maybe these are topics to raise at this year's Networkshop.

>Perhaps  its  time  we  understood  the  nature  of the problem here, and then
>started looking at mechanisms which may address these. The flat annual payment 
>answered a number of issues, but incremental volume based tariff regimes  also
>have a legitimate role for lower volume clients of the networked enterprise. 

Volume based regimes sound ok to me, as long as they are reasonable.  At the
moment, there is already something like this, as I see it.  The standard
$1,000 gets you ~4Mb worth of AARNet access a month (whatever that means) until
eyebrows start being raised, and the hands go out for more money.  However,
private individuals and small organisations are unlikely to get close to this
traffic figure per month, and would welcome some alternative arrangement I
think.

Personally, one of the main reasons I wanted my home machine to be "connected"
was to get the incoming news on my own machine where I could play with it, and
start developing network access tools for the private individual.  Mail and
news posts form a very small part of my total traffic.  Indavertently, this
scenario leads to the "you pay for the MX" view, because the actual chargeable
traffic one generates is miniscule, so you must be paying all this money for
_something_ :-) .

>SO  I've attempted not to answer any of the questions posed to date - I simply
>don't think the policy-based answers I could provide are attuned to the actual 
>issues going on here. I'm interested in seeing further input right now.

I hope I've explained a little more about what some of us out here on the
edge feel in regards to AARNet.

Cheers,

Rhys.
--
Rhys Weatherley, University of Queensland, Australia.
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au  "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"