From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Subject: Re: priv.au namespace (was Re: mail to "brisnet.org.au" problem)
Originator: cjsv@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
Organization: Computer Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.012847.29925@newshost.anu.edu.au> G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au writes:

| What is being pushed here ...
| From the AVCC:
|    a) it's (currently) a private network for use by academics and researchers
|       => use is to conform to Appropriate Use policies
|    b) it's user funded
|       => all external users should pay their way (in some fashion)

Sounds reasonable.

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

I guess so.  And I imagine network resale is legally touchy, anyway, given
most Australian political parties' attitudes to regulation.

| 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. 

I've been led to understand (I don't know, since I don't have anything
to do with the AVCC, AARN or with APANA) that there is a restriction
that all members of uu.oz.au should be in the one state.  If they're
paying for their own phone calls to pick up mail from Melbourne, I
don't know what the problem is.  Unless AARN wants to carry all
interstate traffic themselves.  But then I may well misunderstand the
situation.

| 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. 

Especially where the volume tapers off towards zero.  I don't know how
much stuff a normal private user would expect to get as mail.  (But
then, I guess FTP by mail would increase this drastically.)

I *think* this is the situation:

News is not charged for by AARN despite the fact that its volume
swamps mail to any single site, because the AARN site already has to
carry news for its own purposes.  I believe that AARN sites are free
to charge a fee for their connections, or to decline any request to
connect.

Getting news doesn't seem to be too much of a problem, and I don't
know of any attempts by AARN or AARN sites to control redistribution.
UKnet tried that and gained universal contempt.

Mail is charged for by AARN, supposedly by volume.  Many people
believe that the charges for this are too high.  It also appears that
many people believe that the traffic volume paid for should be
resellable, or at least divisible by a group whose sole common
interest is getting mail access.  I believe that the charge for a
particular volume of mail does not depend on the kind of link between
the AARN host and the client.  UUCP and ACS/MHS are both happening.

I *guess* the following:

Other forms of connection beyond mail are possible, and chargeable (by
AARN) to varying degrees, such as permanent or dialin SL/IP (and
presumably PPP).

I guess the high charge is related to the client network having NSFNET
connected status, and being advertised, and would assume that a SL/IP
connection from an unconnected and unadvertised network (requiring the
client to stage requests and connections through services on the local
AARN host) would not attract such a high charge, since it's
effectively now just a remote login onto the local AARN host.  This
might even be a reasonable transport in place of UUCP or ACS/MHS,
mentioned above.  (But I don't know how this goes.)  I don't know how
useful this would be to a client, anyway.

| 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 assume AVCC are sticking to the policy that there must be some
degree of community of interest between themselves and those who
connect?

If news is considered a valuable resource (lots of information
floating past), then allowing people to connect who can contribute to
ongoing discussions, especially in some of the technical groups, might
be considered valuable, even if they have no association with a
university or CSIRO, although it's probably hard to put a $ value on
the benefit.  If these people can be considered valuable contributors
to technical discussions, then it becomes appropriate for them to be
able to receive mail, too.

There is an AUUG machine in Canberra, and various other machines
providing similar service in other capitals.  If they've paid their
money to AARN, then presumably mail traffic from one of these nodes to
another is covered.  I guess that clubs or associations will arise
whose membership gathers specifically to obtain connection.
Presumably they will pay to have their machine connected, and the
number of such machines will presumably have some relationship to the
number of people wanting connection.

I guess these machines will be restricted to not redistributing mail,
except for forwarding to a member/subscriber of the appropriate
association.  I imagine third-party redistribution of mail will be
frowned upon (by AARN), although third-party redistribution of news
should probably be encouraged (at least by local AARN sites, to reduce
their load).

I assume that if someone like AUUG pays for a connection in several
cities, they can then expect AARN to carry their inter-city traffic,
since that's presumably what they've paid for.  (Of course, if AARN
allow them to pay for a single connection, and allow use of the domain
for users all over Australia, then it may be expected that the users
must pay for interstate traffic.  But isn't that where APANA, and
uu.oz.au fit in?)

Bits about routing:

Robert Elz has pointed out that he's happy to provide DNS records
without payment to AARN, as long as such record does not imply that
any traffic has to traverse AARN (unless it's from an AARN site).
This provides a mechanism for AARN (and other Internet) sites to know
how to route mail for a domain.

ACS/MHS routing (also mostly domain-based) gets to sites not
registered with the DNS, but AARN sites are supposed to use the DNS
for routing (except where the AARN site is where the ACS/MHS traffic
leaves AARN, anyway).  I believe the rules for getting a site
affiliated to AARN preclude it being used for explicit routing of
third-party traffic.  So an ACS/MHS site would profit from registering
with AARN, if they want communication from AARN sites.

UUCP routing is almost non-existent in Australia, and I am unaware of
any AARN site which uses the (full) UUCP maps for routing, so this
doesn't seem to be a solution.  Despite this, I'm happy to accept
routing entries for inclusion in the UUCP maps, without imposing any
restrictions related to AARN traffic.  I do insist that any domains
used be visible either in the ACS/MHS routing tables or in the DNS.
For *.oz.au, preferable both, for any other domain, preferably at
least the DNS.  And the routes generated by the Australian uucp maps
use domain names wherever possible.

-- Christopher