[11067] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected? (fwd)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sun Mar 20 07:49:56 1994

From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 00:11:37 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <m0phgfc-000IBUC@crynwr> from "Russell Nelson" at Mar 18, 94 10:41:00 am

>    From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
>    Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:58:18 -0600 (CST)
> 
>    > (only a single IP address assigned, not at all intended for routing,
>    > just a way that a customer can trade up from VT100 to real GUI interfaces)
>    > (I feel that those customers should be able to get the CIX access 
>    > also, considering that they are not people who we are "reselling" IP
>    > access to, they are just using IP as a personal interface into the net.
> 
>    Disagree.
> 
>    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.
> 
> MR.net does the same thing, yet they're not a member of the CIX.

Then MR.NET's SLIP customers are not guaranteed CIX member connectivity.  I
hope they're being straight with their customer base.

>    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.
> 
> Okay, what if I run the ``term'' program?  It runs a reliable,
> byte-sequenced protocol over a serial line that is NOT IP, yet it
> allows people to open TCP ports on their local machine.  Someone could
> easily write a Winsock or "TCP" stack that runs over term.  Everyone
> using ``term'' is using the same IP address (that of the server), yet
> everyone is in a different place.
> 
> As far as they're concerned, they have IP access to the net.  Is this not
> the same as IP resale??

If its another attempt (like using SOCKS) to evade the requirements, then I
would say so.

You can <always> come up with a device to get around a technical or
business issue, or make it appear that you're doing something you're not
(or that you aren't doing something you are).  You can usually do it in 
such a way that you don't get "caught".  Doesn't make it right.

--
--
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.

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post