Mailing List Archive

Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value )
Interestingly enough, there are now 5 Pentium Pro marks available
for linux. The performance is awesome and the 'processing value'
compared to many COTS FOO-UNIXs is truely amazing (not that
the P5 100+ figures were *poor*, they are not!, but the Pentium
Pro numbers suprised me.

That is why, when I cruise the 'Files' and review the dollar
amount of projects such as the RA (also awe-struck by the
dollar amount, BTW ;-) it seems ironic that projects of
such importance to the IP World can be configured to not to
withstand a single platform crash (and as pointed out,
you don't need P Pros and other higher end processors for
hot and cold secondaries in this application).

For example, for the 'public files':

--------------------------------------------------------
NSF Org : NCR
Latest
Amendment
Date : August 17, 1995
File : a9321060

Award Number: 9321060
Award Instr.: Cooperative Agreement
Prgm Manager: Priscilla Jane Huston
NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR
CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR
Start Date : July 1, 1994
Expires : June 30, 1998 (Estimated)
Expected
Total Amt. : $10,360,637 (Estimated)
Investigator: Eric M Aupperle
Sponsor : Merit Inc
2200 Bonisteel Blvd
Ann Arbor, MI 481092099 313/764-9423

NSF Program : 4091 NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE
Fld Science : 31 Computer Science & Engineering
Fld Applictn: 0206000 Telecommunications
Abstract :
9321060 Merit, Inc. Aupperle The major project elements for the
routing arbiter include advancement of Internet routing algorithms with
respect to scaling and stability issues, routing information registration
and dissemination for the network service providers serving the
Internet, deployment of route servers to aid in the dissemination and
real time maintenance of the global Internet routing system, and
coordination and sharing of technical information in support of the
Internet operations community. A key task for the routing arbiter will
be to enhance the use of new switched services offered by the
telecommunications carriers, sucy as ATM, in place of dedicated point to
point technology that is widely deployed in wide area internets. This
proposal is a part of a collaborative effort with USC. Merit will take
the lead responsibility for the Management and Coordination, Transition,
Routing Registry Dababase, Routing Operations Center (ROC) and GateD
software development and collaboration. It will provide consultation to
USC in routing engineering who will take the lead in research and
development. Both the Merit and USC teams will collaborate in all
areas, but Merit will take the lead for operations, for communications
with clients relative to the services provided and for overall
coordination.

--------------------------end database file-----------------------------


I think there is a mistake (maybe?) in the database because the
$10,149,218 dollar program with RA as the 'major project element'
is award #9321043; but award #9321060 has the *exact* same
abstact for $10,360,637.... (I plead guilty for not understanding
why the same abstract appears twice under two awards with similar
but different dollar amounts and different award numbers...)

I'll stop now, I can't explain why there are two $10 M awards in
the database to Merit. Except that it must be an operator entry
error in the database...

Certainly, in either event, a couple of redundant foo-unix servers
would not break the bank of the Investigator and would have greatly
been appreciated by the MAE-WEST RA user and provider community.

Happy Trails,


Tim

---

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

-Roger Waters
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
### On Sat, 1 Jun 1996 18:04:56 -0400 (EDT), Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST)
### <nanog@linux.silkroad.com> wrote to flatline@ironhorse.com (Christopher
### E. Stefan) concerning "Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value )":

TB> it seems ironic that projects of such importance to the IP World can be
TB> configured to not to withstand a single platform crash

That statement is untrue. At all our production sites, the service can
withstand a single platform crash. This is because we have redundancy at
those exchange points. However, at MAE-West, there was only one machine
operational. The lack of a redundant machine was what prohibited
declaration of production status.


--
/*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> ]======================+
| Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[.~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K |
| VOX: (313) 763-4907 FAX: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated |
+==[. Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]

Jake replies:

> That statement is untrue. At all our production sites, the service can
> withstand a single platform crash. This is because we have redundancy at
> those exchange points. However, at MAE-West, there was only one machine
> operational. The lack of a redundant machine was what prohibited
> declaration of production status.

Jake, I am not passing judgment here nor trying to be antagonistic

(I do however, *attempt* to use independent good judgment).

It just appears to this chair, from observation of the situation, there
were some IP customers peering with the MAE-WEST RA, and that
when the server died, their was a panic to get it back on line because
it effected their customers. Maybe this perception is incorrect
and no one was effected or experienced a loss of service; in that
event, agreed.

But on the other hand, even though 'technically or administratively'
MAE_WEST RA was of named status 'not-production'; when it crashed
if it effected the daily production operation of networks, then
questions and introspection are expected.

Polemically speaking (as Aristotle might say), one could make some strong
points that MAE-WEST was being 'productive' ;-) De facto vs. de jure...

Again, I am not passing judgment, it just appears to me that on a
$10,000,000 dollar program at an important exchange such as MAE-WEST
(whatever the contractor chooses to call the status 'officially'); a little
redundancy and prudent engineering and benefits the community.

Best Regards,

Tim

---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> But on the other hand, even though 'technically or administratively'
> MAE_WEST RA was of named status 'not-production'; when it crashed
> if it effected the daily production operation of networks, then
> questions and introspection are expected.
>

Yo, Timster,
Please reread the solicitation again carfully.
I am not aware of any language that indicates
MAE-WEST, housed at NASA-AMES or MFS-SanJose
was part of the agreement. These systems were
put there out of the good graces of ISI and MERIT.
No-one was paying for them or thier on-going operations.
When folks wanted to peer, they were explicitly told
these were not production machines. Something that
the RA team did on the side, with spare cycles,
BECAUSE it was/is important.

Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar
award, shall we? Reread that soliciation again.
No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride
at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone
else. And we have two connections, where most everyone
else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award
dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator.
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
talked down from that number, but it still would eat
that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.

--
--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
> at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
>
> --bill

Which one?

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
>
> > Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
> > at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> > talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> > that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
> >
> > --bill
>
> Which one?
>

Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't
think so.

--
--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> > > Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
> > > at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> > > talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> > > that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
> > >
> > > --bill
> >
> > Which one?
>
> Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't
> think so.
>
> --bill

Well, I'm sure it's of interest to the NANOG community - and is germane
to the topic of RA placement (if a NAP operator is trying to block placement
of RA machines).

Anyway, it's not a critical request-for-information, I was just curious.

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
Bill relies:

Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar
> award, shall we? Reread that solicitation again.

At the moment, I only have copies of the abstracts, BTW, and they
do not state explicitly any locations, as you point out.

> No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride
> at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone
> else. And we have two connections, where most everyone
> else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award
> dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator.

Yes, good point, it would be interesting to examine core NSF 4090 and
4091 awards and look at the statistical breakdowns of how much
money is actually going to development & hardware, and how much is
going to transport. This would need to be done, however, not at the
award level, but with the actuals.

My intuition is that you are correct in your lament that a lot of
money goes to transport and 'parking fees'. That is a good point
BTW, because when looking at the dollar amounts of the NSF awards
to the big telcos, it is possible to overlook the addition support
(by providing transport, et. al. services) to other contracts and awards.

> Just as a datapoint, one of them had set initial pricing
> at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.

It appears, on the surface, if more people were actively participating in
helping the busy NSF folks (and the US Taxpayers) find ways to reduce
costs (such as transport and 'parking fees') everyone would benefit,
except those who manage to bill the government (again, US taxpayers)
retail rates at the enormous transport and connection fees.

Since I have some free time, I volunteer to help by looking more
closely at the actuals and providing interested parties with a comprehensive
breakdown of how the 4090 and 4091 money actually flows. I'm sure
the good NSF folks will be glad to point me to the right person
there to examine the actuals; these are public funds, yes?

After all, if we are spending ??? millions of dollars on transport and
cannot afford to build a solid 'next generation' RA system and
accessible NAPs (or just a few RAs at the existing NAPS) then it
is reasonable and prudent to question the way the tax-dollar actuals are
being allocated and spent.

This appears to be a rational, equitable, and just approach.

Best Regards,

Tim

> --bill


--
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

-Roger Waters
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with
me....

i think his question is very relevant......

how bout phrasing it differently? if ameritech, pac bell, mfs, or sprint
were
initially clueless (greedy?) enough to ask for $60,000 a month I can see
why you might like to decline to embarrass the offender.... - *IF* such
entity has become more reasonable in the meantime.

so let me rephrase avi's question:

what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly
disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.

**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************


On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:

> > > > Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
> > > > at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> > > > talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> > > > that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
> > > >
> > > > --bill
> > >
> > > Which one?
> >
> > Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't
> > think so.
> >
> > --bill
>
> Well, I'm sure it's of interest to the NANOG community - and is germane
> to the topic of RA placement (if a NAP operator is trying to block placement
> of RA machines).
>
> Anyway, it's not a critical request-for-information, I was just curious.
>
> Avi
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
>
> gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with
> me....
Nope... You look very different.

> so let me rephrase avi's question:
>
> what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly
> disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
> the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.

Check the published rates from the NAP Operators sales force
and/or Web pages.

--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> >
> > disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
> > the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.

Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!

Doug


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have
been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used
until other efforts have failed.

I would like to see what is on those web sites as to current prices and if
I didn't have two consulting seminars with two huge players to get
battened down in the next week, I'd take the time to do it myself. i'd
certainly like to see the data. If anyone has it handy I wish they'd post
it.....but if they don't I'll let this issue hang for a bit. I hate to
admitt it but for the moment earning some good dollars comes first.

**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************


On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Doug Humphrey wrote:

>
> > >
> > > disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
> > > the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
>
> Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!
>
> Doug
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:

> been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used
> until other efforts have failed.

Hmmmm... freudian garter, Gordon?

-dorian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have
> been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used
> until other efforts have failed.

Well, some say that pleasant tones are better than baseball bats, at least
until it's clear that the pleasant tones aren't going to get you anywhere.

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> > >
> > > disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
> > > the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
>
> Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!
>
> Doug
>

(baby fur seal whimper...:)

--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts
have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates
are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone
would post them.

I have also been told privately by a knowledgable source whom i know well
and trust, that pricing info charged in a federal contract that the
awardee consisders proprietary is NOT FOIAble. If this is an accurate
reflection of reality, then I think the reality sucks.

The NAPs are lacking in any effective oversight and I believe there is the
possibility that some of the providers MIGHT be doing some strange things
with pricing. I have heard some specific complaints about sprint.... but
not in the last 90 days. If others are concerned about this I'd be happy
to have their private mail. Depending on the outcome of that I'd
certainly publish something, *if* there is something to be published.

Please don't ask my definition of effective oversight. At the moment i
haven't got one.

**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************


On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Dorian Kim wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used
> > until other efforts have failed.
>
> Hmmmm... freudian garter, Gordon?
>
> -dorian
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
Interesting enough, you would *think* the NSF awardees would be happy
to share their contractor-subcontract data to the public. Especially
considering that these relationships were questioned by Congress back
in 1992, and the conflict-of-interest issues surfaced.

NSF did an internal study at the request of Congress that addressed
many of the same NAP issues in 1992 that are just as relevant or more
so in 1996. The internal study tried to correct the issues, made
some recommendations, etc.; but the problem still remains by all
accounts (just look at the NSF 4090 and 4091 awards and understand,
a little, how IP Internetworking works.... rocket scientist
knowledge *not required* and need not apply :-)

Why is that?

Because the US government does not demand better accountability from
awardees. Because, again IMO, if the US gov made, as a conditio,n that
all subcontract actuals must be reported to the sponsor (they are not)
and made part of the public record (they are not), then it would
be easy to see how the money flows and why, and *we all* could see
for *ourselves* and think *for ourselves* and draw our own conclusions.

This appears to be something that taxpapers should demand. How
NAPs are funded, how RA research money is actually spent, how
ICM money is subcontracted and to whom, how much money actually
goes to YFRV, ad infinitum; it should be, but *is not* accessable
public information unless the programs are specifically audited,
and in that event, the audit is internal and the details are
not made public.

Why not make the contract-subcontract relationships and amounts
public when public funds are being used? After all, if you can't
manage and track the money you are spending, then the short answer
is "better not award it".

This begs an answer, IMO. The Internet just continues to spiral,
not because of 'routing tables', but because of more fundamental
business ethics issues. But by redirecting the focus to
mundane technical issues, smoke-screening the flow of money issues
and ethics issues.... life goes on.



Tim


--
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

-Roger Waters
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
>
> call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts
> have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates
> are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone
> would post them.
>

Hum, I would expect that actual pricing may not be
reflected on Web pages anymore. In fact Sprint does
not have a web site for its NAP.

The other pointer I recommended was the Sales Force(s)
for each operator. They will be more than happy to
provide quotes. Very likely the same quotes as provided
to any of their other customers.

--
--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
Ah, thanks Bill. this is more useful. Interesting that it is the web
pageless sprint nap that I have had the most complants about. Interesting
that apparently connection prices are not quoted in a public place but
available from the sales forces.

this is beginning to get my attention. If ISPs would be willing to fax me
written quotes they have gotten over the last few months, I would compile
the data and report on what I find. could be a way of keeping the sales
forces honest.

since I haven't a clue as to who any of these guys are, i'd be delighted
to hear from any NAP provider sales guys who are reading this list. Am i
naive if I invite those Nap owners that the RA is paying for a connection
and who feel they are charging the RA a fair price to report the amount of
such price?

**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************


On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:

> >
> > call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts
> > have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates
> > are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone
> > would post them.
> >
>
> Hum, I would expect that actual pricing may not be
> reflected on Web pages anymore. In fact Sprint does
> not have a web site for its NAP.
>
> The other pointer I recommended was the Sales Force(s)
> for each operator. They will be more than happy to
> provide quotes. Very likely the same quotes as provided
> to any of their other customers.
>
> --
> --bill
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
At 06:08 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with
>me....
>
>i think his question is very relevant......
>
>how bout phrasing it differently? if ameritech, pac bell, mfs, or sprint
>were
>initially clueless (greedy?) enough to ask for $60,000 a month I can see
>why you might like to decline to embarrass the offender.... - *IF* such
>entity has become more reasonable in the meantime.
>
>so let me rephrase avi's question:
>
>what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly
>disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
>the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.

Since I've been involved with the NAP project at Pacific Bell, the RA has
only been charged for an ATM port ($4,850 mo. flat). There has been no
charge for the facilities in which the servers are housed, for reserved rack
space, for power, access, whatever...

Bill and I have been in discussion about a way to reduce the ATM access fees
considerably, and that is merely waiting for some clearance (which I thought
would come *much* faster) on my side of the house. Our mission (already
accepted, Mr. Phelps) is to reduce the charge to zero.
Kind regards,
Warren

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren K. Williams, Director - Network Access Point
Pacific Bell Business Communications Services
Email: wkwilli@pacbell.com Phone: 510.867.9065
-------------------------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> Since I've been involved with the NAP project at Pacific Bell, the RA has
> only been charged for an ATM port ($4,850 mo. flat). There has been no
> charge for the facilities in which the servers are housed, for reserved rack
> space, for power, access, whatever...

This is correct.

--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
The FOIA may be viewed as a bat, but that is unfortunate. Public access
to government information is vital to our democracy and laws like the FOIA
and their state/local equivalents are important. There use in situations
like this is only a reflection on the agency being 'queried'.

I believe that public access to government information will become one of
the greatest sources of 'influence' for us 'netizens'. Bravo for priming
the pump...

Doug Tooley (not the Doug below)

On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:

> oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have
> been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used
> until other efforts have failed.
>
> I would like to see what is on those web sites as to current prices and if
> I didn't have two consulting seminars with two huge players to get
> battened down in the next week, I'd take the time to do it myself. i'd
> certainly like to see the data. If anyone has it handy I wish they'd post
> it.....but if they don't I'll let this issue hang for a bit. I hate to
> admitt it but for the moment earning some good dollars comes first.
>
> **********************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
> (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
> Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
> http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Doug Humphrey wrote:
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me
> > > > the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
> >
> > Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
Hey Thanks Warren!

Ok - now that we have heard from PAC Bell lets hear from MFS, Sprint and
Ameritech as to RA charges. Were waiting guys......... :-)

**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************


On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Bill Manning wrote:

> > Since I've been involved with the NAP project at Pacific Bell, the RA has
> > only been charged for an ATM port ($4,850 mo. flat). There has been no
> > charge for the facilities in which the servers are housed, for reserved rack
> > space, for power, access, whatever...
>
> This is correct.
>
> --bill
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> Hey Thanks Warren!
>
> Ok - now that we have heard from PAC Bell lets hear from MFS, Sprint and
> Ameritech as to RA charges. Were waiting guys......... :-)

Sprint charges about $5700 now for a colocated router w/ FDDI attachment.
MAE-East and MAE-West charge in that range (about $5-6k for a FDDI
attachment, depending on colo or WAN and switched or shared FDDI).

I don't know about PAC Bell.

And obviously, I don't know what any of them charge the RA project.

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value ) [ In reply to ]
> Please reread the solicitation again carfully.
> I am not aware of any language that indicates
> MAE-WEST, housed at NASA-AMES or MFS-SanJose
> was part of the agreement. These systems were
> put there out of the good graces of ISI and MERIT.
> No-one was paying for them or thier on-going operations.
> When folks wanted to peer, they were explicitly told
> these were not production machines. Something that
> the RA team did on the side, with spare cycles,
> BECAUSE it was/is important.
>
> Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar
> award, shall we? Reread that soliciation again.
> No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride
> at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone
> else. And we have two connections, where most everyone
> else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award
> dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator.
> Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing
> at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been
> talked down from that number, but it still would eat
> that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.

The more intersesting question to me, would be one of
what is the cost per user of the RA, and is a NAP/MAE
with an RA a better serviec than one without. Two easy
models for paying for RA services at MAEs/NAPs, are for
the NAP/MAE operator pay for the RA service and fund that
from interconnect fees. The other way, would be for the
RA to collect fees from users, but then the RA would
have to do collections, etc, and do a risk assumption
which they aren't really in the position to do, like the
commerical NAP/MAE operators are.

I seem to remember this thing about wanting to move to
a commerical based net from a government funded one.

Of course having a RA service paid for by the users
(directly or indirectly), would quickly give people
some data points for the value of the service.

I don't have my numbers handy, but average pricing for
NAP/MAP varies between $5000-$10,000 for a >50mbps <200mbps
connection. (Having just completed this in the past
two days..)

--
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094
http://www.fc.net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -