[1223] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: technical details
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow)
Tue Aug 27 14:23:15 1991
To: wls@psi.com (William Schrader)
Cc: com-priv@uu.psi.com, lear@turbo.bio.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:34:04 -0400.
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:23:29 MST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us>
Bill,
Furthering your alternative approach: if Regionals were to join the CIX to
route their commercial traffic why would Regionals still need a connection
to the 100% government paid ANS backbone (given that the CIX can handle
*all* types of traffic, academic and commercial)?
If *all* Regionals were to join the CIX, what would the purpose of a
government paid backbone be ?
Geoff
>> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:34:04 -0400
>> From: wls@psi.com (William Schrader)
>> Subject: Re: technical details
>> To: com-priv@uu.psi.com, lear@turbo.bio.net
>>
>> Eliot,
>> Government policy distinguishes between commercial and academic
>> traffic, not whether the source or destination is commercial or
>> academic. This is reasonable.
>>
>> An alternative to the approach Ittai outlined earlier is for Regionals
>> to join the CIX to route their commercial traffic and have their
>> academic traffic continue to route over the 100% government paid ANS
>> backbone connection.
>>
>> Bill
>> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 22:46:08 -0700
>> From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot)
>> To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
>> Subject: technical details
>>
>> Thanks to Ittai for producing that note. I'd like to say that it's
>> *easy* to sign up with ANS. In fact, it may be too easy. Does a
>> regional have any TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE alternative if it also wants to
>> talk to the academic backbone?
>> --
>> Eliot Lear
>> [lear@turbo.bio.net]
>> -------
