[5183] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Thu Oct 10 23:11:36 1996
To: avg@quake.net (Vadim Antonov)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:42:48 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199610110121.SAA00346@quest.quake.net> from "Vadim Antonov" at Oct 10, 96 06:21:04 pm
From: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Reply-To: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Hola,
> There seems to be a confusion between private leaf networks (which nobody
> generally cares about) and the major backbone (as I-2 advocates portray it).
> Nobody cares about AUPs in leaf networks. AUPs in transit backbones
> are evil. Or everybody already forgot NSFNET AUP and the tons of
> related hackery in routing policies all around the world?
The interesting thing to me below is the assumption that there is
an inherent difference between a transit backbone and a private
leaf network. Other than the likely lack of separate ASes within
a leaf network, the difference is the policy of the network, in
addition to the topoligical contiguity to other folks. Certainly
this is significant. Yes I _know_ one could say that a backbone doesn't
have any real destinations on it, but the distinction is rather
vague. Clearly with loose source routing, one could make most
any (properly unfiltered) leaf node network a transit network, if
there were some motivation for doing this (but there wouldn't be,
would there? :)
I believe Manning makes a good point that an AUP is inherent to a
network.
We have seen an increase in the discussions of AUP with respect to
backbones (MCI/SL/UU). The discussions regarding dumping defaults
and forced routing to destinations not advertised all centered
around AUP.
> Actually, that Clinton's network "initiative" is entirely in line with
> their other efforts to curb the free flow of information -- particularly
> at the place where there is a contingent of young people who would be
> affected most by the information. It is no secret that political views
> ofmost people who have spent some time with Internet tend to shift to
> more libertaran, as they get taste for free communication not generally
> afforded by the "democratic" system. Hence the effective opposition to
> the encryption policy and CDA. Sure as hell, after such embarrasment
> the administation does not like intelligentsia to have a voice.
While the case is there, it is not that strong. I think Sagan calls it a
pseudoscientific argument....
> Don't fool yourself. The I-2 is not the "faster Internet". It is
> a tool to force those pesky free-thinkers to shut up.
Maybe. More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education
institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).
I don't blindly accept the altruistic guise under which it was presented,
but I do think there are sig. other reasons beyond government
control.
(On the other hand, Vadim does have more history on this than I
do...)
$0.02 rubles,
Alan
