[11032] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Mar 18 14:42:37 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: 0003858921@mcimail.com (Robert G. Moskowitz)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:04:59 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, karl@mcs.com
In-Reply-To: <83940318123538/0003858921NA5EM@mcimail.com> from "Robert G. Moskowitz" at Mar 18, 94 07:35:00 am
> >You ARE reselling IP access to those people. If not, then you could
> >firewall the accounts so they could see only your hosts via IP. But
> >that's not what you're doing, nor is it what we're doing.
>
> >We <used> to have SLIP accounts that could only see our systems. Those
> >were not "IP resale" by definition, since you couldn't telnet off-MCSNet
> >(as an example) from them. What I do within our infrastructure is my
> >business. As soon as I reach out to other networks it no longer is my
> >business alone.
>
> >I suspect that if you asked the customer what he was buying, he would
> >perkily say "IP access to the net". If that's not IP resale I don't know
> >what is. Its double-speak to try to claim that is not what you're doing;
> >you know darn well that is what the customer is <buying>, and <why> he or
> >she is buying it -- because he or she wants to route <packets> -- IP
> >packets - to and from the net. You're doing that job for money. How can
> >you possibly claim you're not "routing" those packets? You sure as heck
> >are!
>
> Speaking for my colleagues that are getting this type of service for their
> homes, I disagree with you Karl.
>
> People want 'IP access to the net' to get better interfaces and
> functionality than a shell account offers. I am an exception and I will
> discuss that later in this note.
Yep. And that functionality involves putting your home and/or office machine
"on the net".
Its the difference between using a host which is on the net, and BEING on
the net. The second allows for a completely different level of
functionality.
If you just wanted a different interface <to your provider's host machine>
the provider could set up firewalled SLIP or PPP access, such that you
couldn't see the net directly.
> Now it is easily arguable that a person with IP access with put more load on
> the net than a person with a shell account. A person with IP access will be
> surfing with Mosaic, FTPing a lot of files, and other things. A person with
> a shell account is principally doing EMail. Thus IMHO Doug is not reselling
> network access as I will define later, but he is putting more of a load on
> the net than a provider that is only offering shell accounts. Perhaps this
> might be put into the fee structure for access somehow...
Sure he is. If you're buying that from Doug, or me, your system is <on the
net>. That's reselling network access.
If I can ping you, you're on the net. That's a definition that has been
accepted for a good long time. And if I can ping you, then Doug is
reselling net access (SOMEONE has to be for you to get the ping and respond
to it!)
> Now as I indicated, I am a different sort of user. A fairly educated one.
> I have LAN at home and do not want to pay LAN rates. I also know
> firewalling technology. I could set up a UNIX system in my house and get it
> a PPP account from a local provider. Then I could run SOCKS or TIS on that
> box to give all of my home systems access to the net. And for IP addresses
> for my home, I would just use one of the C numbers listed in RFC 1597! In
> fact I could (but won't without a more up-front approach to my provider, not
> my style to cheat) then offer IP dialup to my friends and neighbors with the
> NetBlazer I have at home and the net would only see the address of my
> firewall. How would my provider guess that I am doing more than just my one
> system should? By the connect time and by the number of unique connections.
Yep. Further, you might (and I <do> stress might) be violating a contract.
Anyone can cheat; it is axiomatic that it is possible to get around most
anything if you have the mind for it and are willing to risk getting
caught.
> It is that connect time point that might change me from a dialup user to a
> dedicated user. And that is why I am investigating 56Kb or ISDN dedicated
> circuit into my home with an up-front agreement with a provider....
Yep.
> Finally for a plug for firewalls. I foresee a big market for simple, secure
> Dual-homed host firewalls as a result of RFC 1597. As a small businessman,
> I could go to a provider and buy the firewall as a part of my service and
> have my whole private net connected fast and securly. I would not have to
> go to IANA or have my provider do it for me. The only 'public' address in
> my business is the the outbound interface of the firewall.
Again, depends on if you're up front about it or not.
> I hold this out as a business model for you providers. Really open up the
> NII to businesses and work out an effective pricing mechinism and a
> no-settlement arrangement for users like this....
>
> Bob Moskowitz
>
> Speaking for my home business (Contributing Editor to Network Computing).
You already have said no-settlement arrangement. Its called the CIX, and
progressive providers are either already members or are signing up now.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
