[1662] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The WEIS/AUPPERLE letter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Mandelbaum)
Mon Dec 9 17:10:37 1991
To: Stephen Wolff <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: members@farnet.org, regional-techs@merit.edu, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 09 Dec 91 16:32:41 -0500.
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 91 17:04:08 -0500
From: Richard Mandelbaum <rma@tsar.cc.rochester.edu>
Could it be that there are networks out there who want to receive
anything sent to them , but do not want to execute a formal agreement
with ANS ? Perhaps you should institute a "reception by default"
strategy whereby a network gets everything unless it requests otherwise
. In that case it would be Merit's responsibility to block offending
stuff. I think that such a default case is more in the spirit of the
past then the new policy
richard
____________________
The origin of the letter, from NSF's standpoint, is this:
Some of the traffic carried by ANS originates from network numbers who
se
owners have declared all their traffic to be "commercial".
This traffic may land on a gateway shared with NSFNET, on the other si
de of
which is a regional or other network which for one reason or another d
oes
not wish to carry "commercial" traffic.
Since the regional network had no part in causing the offending traffi
c to
land on its doorstep, NSF felt that the regional network should not be
obliged to spend its own resources to keep it out. Since ANS carried
the
traffic to the gateway, NSF felt it was ANS' responsibility to keep it
from
leaking into places it was not wanted.
Accordingly, NSF asked ANS to block traffic appropriately, and asked M
erit
to cooperate in the necessary routing arrangements.
-s
