[446] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
tcp/ip and the Eastern Block
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Lloyd)
Tue Mar 26 05:08:22 1991
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 15:08:54 PST
From: Brian Lloyd <brian@napa.telebit.COM>
To: dvv@dvv.hq.demos.su
Cc: com-priv@uu.psi.com
In-Reply-To: "Dmitry V. Volodin"'s message of Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:11:04 +0300 (MSK) <ADeknwd8W0@dvv.hq.demos.su>
Reply-To: brian@napa.telebit.COM
References: <9103230547.AA12703>
Organization: DEMOS, Moscow, USSR
From: "Dmitry V. Volodin" <dvv@dvv.hq.demos.su>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:11:04 +0300 (MSK)
The problem is that we on this side of the rusty Iron Curtain still
have problems getting some high-tech from the other side. E.g.
T2500 blinking on the desk next to me is, to my knowledge, on the
COCOM list because of it's DSP. We managed to get the device thru
a long chain of resellers. V.32bis (apart from it's doubtful
usefulness in the SU) is, no doubt, also restricted. Don't know
much about the V.32. And without this technology dial-up IP is really
useless.
--
Dmitry V. Volodin <dvv@hq.demos.su> |
fax: +7 095 233 5016 | Call me Dima ('Dee-...)
phone: +7 095 231 2129 |
It is my understanding that the T1000 (baby brother to the
TrailBlazer+) is approved for export to the Soviet Union and the
"Eastern" European countries (disclaimer: I am writing this on the
weekend so I can't verify it and I may be wrong). PEP technology is
not ideal for interactive IP over a dial-up connection (it does work
pretty well with VJ-compressed IP/TCP/TELNET) but it works quite well
with bulk data transfers like SMTP, FTP, NNTP, etc. I would also like
to point out that somehow you managed to get a T2500 into the Soviet
Union. You could probably manage to get a device like a NetBlazer
through the same circuitous path.
Let us now assume that you put up a network, install a dial-up router,
then arrange with someone in another country to advertise your network
at their gateway. Perhaps you just get a couple of subnet addresses
off of a "legitimate" network. Bottom line is that you end up on the
internet (small "i" denotes the generic internet that goes beyond the
bounds of the NSFnet backbone) and there is little that anyone can do
about it (it is unlikely that many will be aware that it is even
happening).
The bottom line is that policy is likely to go out the window when
people want badly enough to participate in the "internet." Formal
rules and regulations tend to go out the window when enough people
wish to operate counter to said rules and regulations (at least they
do in this country -- no slight on any other country; it is just that
I have the greatest experience with actions and reactions in the
United States). Actually, dial-up IP is just a special case in the
growth and proliferation of internetworking. The presence today of
commercial carriers such as PSI and Alternet is just as significant.
Given that this is going to happen, how does one structure a mechanism
to adapt and coexist rather than partition, limit, and control.
Hey folks, we need SIMPLER ways to manage internetworks, not more
complex rulesets. THAT is the challenge: to simplify.
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Telebit Corporation
Network Systems Architect 1315 Chesapeake Terrace
brian@napa.telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1100
voice (408) 745-3103 FAX (408) 734-3333
P.S. Dima: would you please name one of your systems "kremvax" just
for old times sake :-).
