[11407] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
remove from the mailing list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Huon N. Dang)
Thu Mar 31 19:51:04 1994
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 14:02:38 +0800
From: hnd@chevron.com (Huon N. Dang)
To: com-priv@psi.com, nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Cc: hnd@chevron.com
Can someone out there remove my email off ot this mailing list.
Thanks a million.
-Huon (hnd@chevron.com)
> From com-priv-forw@lists.psi.com Thu Mar 31 13:41 PST 1994
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 11:59:45 -0500
> From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
> To: com-priv@psi.com
> X-Remailed-By: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
> X-Ttl: 1
> X-Notice: This message was forwarded by a software-
> automated anonymous remailing service.
>
> Subject; Questionable commercial connections
>
>
> nabil@world.net (Aaron Nabil) writes:
> >Caveat: I've removed the CIX members *I* know of, and any obvious end-users
> >the Sprint is providing transit for. I've also ordered them in roughly what
> >I consider to be from most to least likely. This list specifically does not
> >include direct sprintlink IP (ie, the end user is in Sprintlink's AS).
>
> Personally, I don't know why you waste time worrying about this when there
> are commercial providers with much more questionable connections. We pay
> for our pipe from a commercial provider and are risking the CIX routing
> issue. I know of providers who are scamming their connections from .edu
> sites, getting a free or cheaper ride for their traffic instead of buying a
> real commercial connection pipe. If the commercial IP world (including
> CIX) is losing out if anything its through that practise. Personally I
> don't think the government should fund or subsidize any pipes but only be
> a customer like any other (if perhaps larger), and let the market deal with
> providing the pipes in the most efficient manner (if ISPs can rationally
> cooperate in their own interest to do so).
> Oh, and I think there may even be CIX members in this category, where all
> of their traffic is going through .edu routes no matter where it is headed,
> and it seems like the govt. is essentially not giving ISPs a level playing
> field by playing favorites even at the local ISP level (obviously at the
> national level there are issues to be resolved, but at the local level
> there isn't a reason for this).
>
>
>
>
