[5301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet: Getting more money ...??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Mon Oct 14 18:33:38 1996
To: Dana Hudes <dhudes@panix.com>
cc: curtis@ans.net, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Oct 1996 15:06:57 EDT."
<199610141906.PAA23721@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:16:28 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199610141906.PAA23721@panix.com>, Dana Hudes writes:
>
> Point may have been obscured. You add more facts (thanks!) the
> question is what the $10 million represented -- did it include the
> money IBM spent but did not charge the NSF?
It represented what NSF spent. I think AT&T bid $22M/year in 1987 for
a T1 network, though I didn't read that anywhere. The OIG report
describes the non-competitive nature of some of the alternate
requests.
> As for the NSS's being still in place but disconnected, I thought the
> lease was up a year ago. The NSS's certainly are not cost
> effective. One of the problems that they faced in the versions
> subsequent to those you had at ANS was running out of backplane
> bandwidth for WAN-LAN (and LAN-LAN) transfers. Another of course was
> their proprietary nature. The price tag doesn't surprise me, Rs/6ks
> are expensive. But the sampling feature would be helpful in the SYN
> attack situation.
The NSFNET was over in May 1995. IBM and ANS contracted for ANS to
pay IBM to support the routers for another year to allow time to find
a replacement and get them deployed. Things ran way behind schedule
so after June the NSS were no longer supported but still in use for
about 2 months.
> Dana
Curtis
