[160] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Is SUNFLASH misuse of the network?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Tue Nov 13 20:53:13 1990
To: kwe@buitb.bu.edu (Kent England)
Cc: dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com, sob@tmc.edu, com-priv@psi.com, schoff@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Nov 90 09:59:17 -0500.
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 08:53:48 PST
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@wrl.dec.com>
Well you're right, policy-based routing is still blue sky. I don't see
a way for the NSFnet or the regionals to implement it unless we extend
the IP protocol to include a "type of traffic" field :-), which someone
is no doubt working on an RFC for as I type this in.
However, end-users have the information they need to decide what path
their traffic should take. The simplistic approach I'm about to take
here at DEC WRL is to create a second mail gateway which only listens
to routes from my Alternet cisco. I'll call it "profit-gw.pa.dec.com"
or some such. People with mailing lists that contain for-profit traffic
can forward in and out through this secondary gateway.
This scales perfectly well since it's a move from one to two and a move
to three is unlikely. It does not actually solve NSF's problem, since it
is likely that Alternet does not contain the other endpoint of all members
of our hypothetical mailing list. However, it's a "best effort" and as
such it should keep us out of hot water with the fedgov.
Paul Vixie
(not a company spokesman)
DEC WRL
