[12149] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: No Wonder they are calling it the Infobahn - VBNS & commercial use
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barney Wolff)
Sat May 7 06:26:56 1994
Date: Sat, 7 May 94 03:41 EDT
From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
> From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
> Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 04:21:45 GMT
>
> Quote: While I might not like quite how you have put a few things
> about the dual use of the ANS backbone I do think you are basically
> right. Not that I think you should be. However, I think that in 1990
> Steve screwed up in defining what NSF was buying. Then he said
> that it was T-3 service. As you have pointed out that left him open
> to people asking how ANS could sell drinks from the same glass of
> water so to speak without cheating the NSF. For Steve was buying all
> 45 mgbs from a glass or "pipe" that only held 45. If Steve had said
> we are buying a guaranteed rate of service of 20 mgbs for example
> and said that if ANS could deliver 30 mgbs it could sell the
> difference, he'd have been on safer ground.
At the risk of seeming foolishly naive, it seems to me that the issue
for the T3 net was whether the inability of the RS6000's for a long
time to use the full T3 caused congestion, often or at all. If it did
not, then there was no penalty whatsoever for the delay in coming up to
(full) speed. Is the actual net traffic, even now, up to the point
where any T3 is over 50% used by other than bandwidth-test traffic? My
understanding is that even when IETF-Meeting MBone traffic causes
congestion, that's on slower links, not on the backbone T3's. Will
somebody correct me if that's wrong?
If the above argument is valid, then it should apply to the ATM net as well.
Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
