[457] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX Implications
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Ray)
Wed Mar 27 01:47:02 1991
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 01:33:26 EST
From: jdr@mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray)
In-Reply-To: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
To: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>, tmn!cook@uunet.uu.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
On Mar 26, 11:36pm, "Martin Lee Schoffstall" wrote:
} Subject: Re: CIX Implications
}
}
} <<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 26-MAR-91 23:13
} cook@tmn
} The CIX announcement is interesting. Am surprised there has been little
} (no?) comment. Would someone say what a comapny like Harris which
} presumably is not now connected to any of the three partners in CIX would
} have to do to send its packets from say Suranet to a PSInet gateway where
} they could wind up presumably at plants in New York and california without
} using the NSFnet backbone.
}
} But doesn't SURANet have restrictions on THEIR backbone? For Harris to do
} what you suggest would require:
}
Quite correct. Harris does adhere to the restrictions imposed by
SURANet.
} 1) harris to join one of the 3 cix participants
} or
} 2) suarnet to join the CIX directly
}
} What i am getting at is whether or not some kind of traverse fee is
} feasible for those companies who are on other parts of the net as .coms or
} whether a full fledged CIX router on my company presence is necessary to
} enjoy the CIX freedom from commercial use restriction? Or is ther a
} middle course? Could I sign up as a monthly dial in customer.
}
} Who wants a traversal fee? Do you think SURANET's customer wants to
} hear about how they can do something for $Y and something more for $Y+X?
} I doubt it. Who wants to break the Internet paradigm right now of
} a flat fee, and universal access? I know of only one organization.
}
Definitly. I can think of no one that wants to pay an additional
fee to be free of the commercial use restriction. I do believe that
this is the beginning of a great movement though ( CIX ).
Tell me something though. Is it my imagination, or is all the NREN
legislation and the ANS outsourcing of the NSFnet an ominous wind?
Seems interresting to me that the NREN legislation appears to keep the
non-commercial use restrictions while more or less allowing ANS to do
whatever they want. A slight extrapolation of this would be that ANS
would have a molopoy on commercial use on the INTERNET. Quoting from
the "Future of Mid-Level Networks" by Richard Mandelbaum ( page 18 ),
"... Weis said that one of the main resons for the founding of ANS was
to provide an alternative network which would allow commercial
information suppliers to reach the research and educational community
without worrying about the usage restrictions of the NSFNET". Sounds
more like trying to lure commercial customers from the regionals to
ANS.
I would imagine that the NREN and NSFnet folks aren't at all too happy
with the CIX arrangement ( I could be wrong here ). Just think, if
the Gore legislation fails to pass ( I don't support it in its current
mutation ), and in 1992 the NFSnet funding evaporates ( slated end of
funding ), what if ALL the regionals interconnect, and change their
"use" policy's to allow commercial traffic? Now, I'm not nieve enough
to believe that the regionals could handle the large current load with
hap-hazzard connections between themselves. But with some work...
Jim Ray
