[1217] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
ANS mid-level agreements [was "Network World "The Vision of..."]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ittai Hershman)
Mon Aug 26 16:03:46 1991
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 16:00:41 EDT
From: Ittai Hershman <ittai@shemesh.ans.net>
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
Cc: lear@turbo.bio.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 26 Aug 91 01:31:08 -0700
Would someone please explain to me how a regional can keep commercial
traffic on commercial backbones (ie: off gov't sponsored networks)
while still maintaining a link to NSFNET?
ANS has spent quite a bit of time working on this issue. And as I
have mentioned previously, this is the subject which Al Weis addressed
at the FARnet meeting two weeks ago.
The attached two-page document, A Mid-level's Guide to the ANS
Agreements, was handed out at FARnet. (The postscript is available
via anonymous FTP from ftp.ans.net in the ~ftp/pub/info directory).
A more detailed (and significantly longer) paper explaining the
rationale, policy issues, and technical details will be made available
early next week. I will announce its availability on com-priv.
Finally, in response to the growing demand for information on
commercial networking activities involving ANS, we are creating a
mailing list: CO+RE@ANS.NET.
To subscribe to CO+RE, send a message to:
CO+RE-REQUEST@ANS.NET
[Leave out the "+" if your mailer can't deal with it: CORE@ANS.NET
and CORE-REQUEST@ANS.NET will work].
-Ittai
-----------------------------------------
A Mid-level's Guide to the ANS Agreements
Advanced Network and Services, Inc.
August 14, 1991
Introduction
In a series of meetings between September 1990 and April 1991,
representatives from FARnet, the NSF, ANS, and others worked on a
framework for mixed research/education (RE) and commercial (CO) use of
FARnet mid-levels and the ANS network. Emphasis was placed on finding
a way to support such use over NSF-sponsored gateways.
The implementation of this framework has been cast into a series of
agreements. In a normative case, a FARnet member would sign the first
of them, the Connectivity Agreement, and either the Gateway Attachment
Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement, or a variant. The purpose of
this Guide is to describe the essentials of each.
The Connectivity Agreement
The Connectivity Agreement is intended to be signed by ANS, ANS CO+RE,
and by each of the participating mid-level networks. The essential
approach is to:
o agree to permit traffic between the RE sites connected by the
signing net and the CO sites reachable (often via other
mid-levels) through ANSnet,
o agree to use IP network numbers to identify RE and CO traffic,
and
o agree to create a National Infrastructure Pool where certain ANS
revenue received for supporting CO sites, either directly or
through a mid-level, will be placed and which can be used to
support RE infrastructure.
In a nutshell, signing mid-levels are agreeing to permit traffic
between their RE sites and the CO sites of others, and to participate
in the National Infrastructure Pool.
The other agreements are structured to establish a stable, long-term,
self-sufficient environment for the mid-levels, by providing a
structure in which CO sites from mid-levels can exchange traffic with
(RE and CO) sites (often via other mid-levels) through ANSnet.
The Gateway Attachment Agreement
The Gateway Attachment Agreement is intended to be signed by ANS, ANS
CO+RE, and a given mid-level that wants to pass mixed CO and RE
traffic over a connection to ANSnet. By agreement with NSF, there is
a variant of this Agreement that allows the mid-level to use an
existing NSF-sponsored attachment in lieu of a newly engineered ANSnet
attachment. Using this Agreement, the mid-level will be able to
connect RE and CO sites in its service area to the NSF-sponsored
gateways and the RE and CO sites reachable through it. The mid-level
retains the direct business relation with the RE and CO sites it
connects. This attachment is called a Gateway attachement because the
attached mid-level is free to pass traffic from third parties (its
client sites).
Pricing for such a Gateway Attachment depends on several factors:
o the Attachment Bandwidth demanded by the mid-level, i.e., the
bandwidth between the mid-level and the backbone, typically T3,
10 Mb/s, or T1.
o a Site Table of sites connected to ANSnet through the mid-level.
For each site, i.e., for each entry in this Table, there are
three attributes of interest:
> the organization Kind, e.g., research university or
industrial lab,
> the organization Size, e.g., large or small research
university, and
> the Site Bandwidth between the site through the mid-level to
the ANSnet attachment, typically T1 or 56 kb/s.
Further, for each site in the Table, there would be a normal CO price
and a discounted RE price. The result of this pricing is an aggregate
CO price and an aggregate (lower) RE price for the attachment.
The actual price of the attachment would be somewhere between the
aggregate CO price and the aggregate RE price, depending on the
anticipated fraction of total traffic across the attachments that is
CO.
The Cooperative Agreement
While the Gateway Attachment Agreement casts ANS as the provider of a
national backbone service to the mid-level, which then connects
individual sites, the Cooperative Agreement aims at a closer and less
hierarchical relationship. As before, an ANS attachment is engineered
at the mid-level and traffic flows between sites on the mid-level and
sites reachable through ANSnet (and its connected mid-levels). Now,
however, ANS and the mid-level work together closely on marketing and
operations, with ANS CO+RE concentrating on CO connections and the
mid-level concentrating on RE connections, with each benefiting from
the other.
The relationship is easiest to sketch by tracking the
marketing-installation-service path for a new prospective site. When
a new prospect is identified within the area of the mid- level,
follow-up marketing is done by the mid-level for RE sites and by ANS
for CO sites, though the site is free to relate directly to either the
mid-level or ANS in either case. Also, again in either case, the
prospect is offered either an installation engineered by the mid-level
or by ANS (with corresponding performance and/or cost implications).
Thus, in the case of an RE prospect, the mid-level would do follow-up
marketing and offered a connection either directly through ANS or
through the mid-level's infrastructure. If the new RE prospect
chooses to relate to the mid-level, then the mid-level has the
business relation with the new site, regardless of which
engineering/cost choice the site makes. Symmetrically, in the case of
a CO prospect, ANS would follow up and offer both engineering/cost
choices for its connection.
In cases where a prospect chooses to relate directly to ANS, but
chooses a connection through the mid-level, ANS would directly pay for
some connection costs and would also establish a Regional
Infrastructure Pool to support improved infrastructure within the mid-
level. ANS would also ensure that the right amount of money was
contributed to the National Infrastructure Pool mentioned above.
Although the connecting site will in all cases have the choice of
relating to ANS or to the mid-level, we anticipate that CO sites will
tend to relate to ANS CO+RE, while RE sites will tend to relate to the
mid-level. At the same time, regardless of the choice of relation-
ship, the site will have the choice of the cost/engineering
possibilities engineered by ANS and those engineered by the mid-level.
Summary
These agreements address a very complex transition from a government-
supported environment toward a self-supported one. They are designed
to help grow and expand the regional infrastructures, and to establish
strong working relationships between the mid- levels, ANS+CORE, and
ANS. These agreements will evolve as we gain experience.
