[2834] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Backbone solicitation: Bait and Switch??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lars Poulsen)
Wed Jun 10 10:05:18 1992
From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 06:26:20 GMT
Apparently-To: com-priv@psi.com
In article <9206092205.AA26567@tmn.com> cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook) writes:
>If we are now down to one provider don't we have -- because of the
>embedding by the NSF of ANOTHER five years of AUP in the vBNS (remember
>last November it was gonna be for only 3 years) -- a replication of the
>continued privilege that has created all the problems with the CIX and ANS
>over the past year?
Like Gordon, I was surprised to see that the solicitation now expects
only one backbone provider. I had been expecting to see two.
When I first heard about two carriers, I was expecting to see a request
for one carrier to provide a limited number of sites with gigabit
capacity (think of it as an evolution of the T3 network) and all NAPs
supported at T3 rate or so (as an evolution of the T1 network).
This would position ANS to win the gigabit net and PSI to win the lower
tier. I would expect MERIT and GSI to compete for the routing authority
and the NISC.
The current proposal seems to favor ANS for the carrier and MERIT for
the routing authority.
Unlike Gordon, I mostly think that is okay; it is impossible not to
have some bias in an RFP, either for or against the incumbent. But I
do think there needs to be a firewall. I think the wires can be shared,
but the packets need to come out of different interfaces on the NAP ring.
--
The above is purely a personal viewpoint. If Rockwell had an opinion, it
would belong to someone else entirely !!
opinions on this. If
--
/ Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM
CMC (Rockwell Digital Systems) Telephone: +1-805-968-4262
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-5503 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256
