[1254] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: technical details
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Wed Aug 28 21:54:58 1991
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.683342834.vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 20:46:54 -0400
To: "Vince Fuller" <vaf@valinor.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Andrew Partan" <asp@uunet.uu.net>, wls@psi.com, ittai@shemesh.ans.net,
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
>DATE: Tue, 27 Aug 91 18:27:14 PDT
>FROM: Vince Fuller <vaf@valinor.stanford.edu>
>
>Excerpting from:
>
>
>Note the use of the word "may" not "must". In any case, if we assume that all
>mid-levels join the CIX and that the the majority of networks want to use the
>unrestricted CIX, then the list of "my own routes plus all of the CIX routes
>plus all of toutes of other directly connected nets" starts to approximate the
>the global routing table. It will be a LOT of nets that may, in some form, need
>to be carried by each participating midlevel. The reason that we can get away
>with pushing only default around is that the NSFNet backbone serves as the
>general-purpose "core" for the research community. An extensively connected
>CIX with many networks used for both research and commercial traffic breaks
>this model and requires more explicit routing information to be carried.
>
Now we're on to something...
First, I generally like explicit routes as a network provider, what I do
with them varies. So "explicit routes" != BAD.
Agreed that the NSFNet backbone is the core, but if we want tcp/ip and
internetworking to mature we need to remove the core and the top of the
default hierarchy to a neutral corner WITHOUT usage restrictions, so
that we have an Internet that addresses both the research communities
and the commercial world's needs. Then NSFNet is relegated to a
national backbone for R&E users, and everyone can continue to use the
default concept but as part of the NEX instead. Networks that need to
control their usage can institute this control at the edge of the
network (for instance DOE/ESNet can deny access to all networks in the
former Soviet Union), but the core (really the root of the default
hierarch) has no such usage constraints.
As for more explicit routing information being carried, from my example
of the star network, the answer is yes and no.
Marty
