[1682] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Burden relief vs ANS Guide terms and conditions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent W. England)
Tue Dec 10 16:28:43 1991
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe2@BBN.COM>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: members@farnet.org, regional-techs@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9112092134.AA23315@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 16:24:18 EDT
Folks;
I tried to relieve my confusion regarding terms and conditions for
commercial traffic exchange between regionals and NSFnet by re-reading
Steve Wolff's short note of 9 Dec to these lists, the letter from
Merit/ANS of 7 Dec to these lists, the "secret" memo of September 10,
1990 from NSF to Merit about ANS published by Bill Schrader to these
lists, and the ANS "Mid-level's Guide", published by Ittai Hershman on
the com-priv list on 26 Aug 91.
Have the stiff requirements of the ANS Guide, seemingly based on the 10
Sep 90 memo, been relaxed and replaced with the simple requirements of
the notes of 7/9 Dec 91? If not, where is the interpretation which
allows for the enforcement of the Guide requirements?
Steve Wolff simply says that NSF does not want to burden regionals with
unwanted commercial traffic and that the burden of blocking is upon ANS.
ANS/MERIT say only that they will not allow regionals to be burdened
with commercial traffic without "an ANS connectivity agreement or ... an
alternative plan".
It would seem that a regional would need only to state acceptance of
commercial traffic to meet these requirements. However, from the
September 10, 1990 memo from NSF to Merit about ANS:
"NSF agrees that the new corporation may solicit and attach to the
NSFNET Backbone new users, including commercial users, and may connect
them to new or existing nodes on the Backbone, with the understandings
that: 1) such users will reimburse the new corporation for at least the
full average cost of the connection, the added traffic, and additional
related support, and 2) the rembursements will be used to enhance the
network infrastructure and services, in order that the level of service
provided by MERIT under its Cooperative Agreement with the NSF not be
diminished."
The Guide, which is apparently derived from a very strict interpretation
of this September 10, 1990 memo, states that a Connectivity Agreement
includes a *requirement* to participate in the Infrastructure Pool and
requires an additional agreement; either a Gateway Attachment Agreement
that includes RE and CO pricing (aka settlement) or a Cooperative
Agreement that includes joint cooperation in marketing and operations
(aka "marriage"). This seems well beyond the modest need to avoid
burdening regionals with commercial traffic.
So my confusion remains. Are regionals simply required to state
acceptance of commercial traffic, as could be construed from the short
memos of this week, or must they join in Agreement with ANS and Settle
Up? There must be another shoe somewhere.... lay it on me!
--Kent
