[1804] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fair competition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postm)
Sun Dec 29 01:37:37 1991
From: "Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postmaster) <fair@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <9112290040.AA26013@rodan.UU.NET>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 91 22:36:46 -0800
One other thing about the distinction between the T1 and T3 NSFNET
backbones, to emphasize Rick Adams' point - I find it significant that
the T1 backbone exists wholly within the premeses of the various
regional networks, redundancy and all, whereas the T3 network is built
from Core NSS's, located in MCI POPs, and End NSS's, located at the
regional network access point (e.g. Stanford for BARRNET). There is,
according to my information, exactly one T3 link between any E-NSS and
C-NSS, and no direct links between any two E-NSS's. This means that the
T3 backbone, from the point of view of a regional network, has
considerably less redundancy than the T1 backbone.
The T1 backbone is clearly in the hands of the regionals, physically.
The T3 backbone is quite clearly owned and operated by ANS. Perhaps the
regionals should consider keeping those "old" T1 links, and replacing
the T1 NSS's with real routers when the NSF wants to dismantle the T1
NSFNET backbone in favor of the T3 backbone. After all, in networking,
redundancy is good.
Happy New Year,
Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
