|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com> Cc: Martin Schoffstall <schoff@mail.psi.net>, com-priv@psi.com In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 09 Dec 91 09:18:12 -0800. Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:07:09 +0100 From: matsb@sics.se Craig, I haven't read Marty:s comment yet, but to me it may well have impact. Our new US connection was supposed to use "best route" into eighter "NSFnet", or trough the "CIX", the question is which route is possible to take at all now. Will this imply that the CIX members are not allowed routing trough NSFnet to the MID-levels? If this is the case, there has to be at least two separate "systems" down to mid-level and even to individual organisations, one for the R&D fed supported traffic, one to/FROM non-fed supported organisations (or abroad...) So, the hard point is will "all" sign up to accepting traffic from "everywhere" ort not? Lets hope so... --mats ------------------------------ Marty: Your note confused me -- which international links are you talking about? Funding for links between the US and non-US countries varies from joint funding from multiple agencies, to partial govt. funding, to links funded entirely by the non-US entity. [This leaves aside all those international links which connect two non-US countries]. And what exactly do you see the potential impact of the ANS announ cement to be upon links between the US and non-US countries. Craig PS: Pardon the awkward term "non-US" -- I'm just tired of using the term "foreign" to mean any country other than the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |