[1571] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
VPNs [was Internet paranoia]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent W. England)
Tue Nov 12 15:09:46 1991
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe2@BBN.COM>
To: steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9111101242.AA02667@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 15:35:27 EDT
>
>Frequently, the initial response to these worries is to demand the creation
>of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) for the Mission - i.e., a piece of the
>Internet/INREN that is logically separated so that it is unaffected by
>congestion, hackers, or other cruft on the larger 'net. "This is, after
>all," goes one of the arguments, "just an extension of common commercial
>practice: forget the research weenies; you wouldn't expect the really
>important parts of GM and Ford to share a common open data network, would
>you?"
>...
>Whether space scientists, nuclear physicists, or MILNET clients, I think the
>creation of VPNs should be resisted as a matter of principle, ...
I agree with Steve's overall position on connectedness, but I don't
like the blanket condemnation of "virtual private" implied in his
statement. I think virtual private internet constructions have a valid
place in the future, given fast packet infrastructures. Virtual private
internet constructions can serve a legitimate need and need not
necessarily be unconnected or mal-configured.
I would like to avoid the pejorative connotation in the term "virtual
private" that Steve's plea for openness implies, without in any
way attacking or damaging his argument for openness, connectedness, and
the internet way.
--Kent
