[1686] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: international links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Tue Dec 10 23:01:53 1991
In-Reply-To: <9112101007.AA25881@asia.sics.se>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 20:56:22 -0400
To: matsb@sics.se
Cc: "Craig Partridge" <craig@aland.bbn.com>, com-priv@psi.com
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
>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?
All CIX members to date have NSFNet access also. The CIX is there to:
1) provide a non-restricted usage network path between organizations
2) unload the nsfnet which is stumbling pretty bad (see Network World
article) for a non com-priv
3) provide an extremely reliable interconnect point which is controlled
by the membership.
4) provide an alternative to possibly current or future monopolies for
backbone interconnection.
>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...)
>
Two systems is not necessarily bad - technically - psi has had almost
flawless access to cerfnet and alternet sites through the CIX, the same
would not be said of "nsfnet only" organizations.
Marty
