[1843] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Farnet recommendations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Thu Jan 2 23:13:52 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 2 Jan 92 22:53:06 EST (Thu)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 02-JAN-92 22:53
cook@tmn
From looking at the Recommendations of FARnet to the NSF regarding
mid-level connectivity to the Interim NREN, the degree of unease felt by
the mid-levels about being faced with a single provider of backbone
services becomes apparent.
Recommendation 6 states: "mid-level networks should be able to excercise
choice among vendors of top level backbone services." It doesn't
specifically state whether to do this there must be two separate
backbones. However I cannot imagine how else one could give choice
without having two separate backbones. I admit that here-to-fore my
impression had been that one provider would get the circuits for nodes 1
to 8 and the other the circuits for nodes 9 to 16. Can anyone enlighten me
as to how this will likely play out?
Recommendation 10 states: "The NSF should explore the feasibility of
connecting Mid-level networks using a FIX or CIX model as an alternative
to a traditional backbone. Direct inter-regional links may also be
desirable when such links reduce costs and/or improve reliability."
How are the negotiations between the CIX and ANS going? Didn't Susan
Estrada a few weeks ago hold out some hope that ANS would join the CIX by
early January?
