[8452] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A Trojan Horse? Was: Russian chemists harmed by ANS-CIX dispute?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Lee Schoffstall)
Fri Nov 19 16:12:58 1993
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Nov 93 15:21:25 EST."
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 16:11:44 -0500
From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
I read your posting as a declaration that you are willing to use your
customers as pawns in your war with ANS, and I am appalled.
You are 100% off base. ANS is not even an issue for PSI, there is no war
they are not on the scopes.
If there is a "war" it has to do with government policy, that is what i
was talking about in my original posting.
The various recent reports of place A not being able to reach place B
have left me with a growing sense of dismay. I have yet to find an
IP address I cannot reach, other than those behind firewalls, and I
have until now assumed that they could all reach each other too.
I'm telling you that the NSFNet architecture of the solicitation that is
being foisted upon us ALL nearly guarantees this happening. I did not
imply that I was personally or corporately for it. I was trying to
explain where I thought the government was pushing us.
If ANS, the CIX, or anybody else is willing to poison the pie to
prevent somebody else from enjoying a bigger piece, we might as well
all go home. The people in GE who write off the Internet as something
that will self-destruct within 18 months will be wrong only in giving
it too much time.
Again, you don't understand. The CIX agreement, written is stone is
that participantes HAVE to provide access. it is in fact the only
written agreement that I know of in the US that imposes such a free flow.
For the endeavors in which I'm involved - and there suddenly seems to
be a lot of them, we will require a contract stipulating we can reach
any domestic IP address unless the owner of that address does not want
to be reachable. If nobody can provide that, the endeavors almost
certainly will not happen.
Last night I mentioned GE medical's move to remote service via
Internet. There is a lesson in that:
Management there has been so skeptical of networking it took two years
of my lobbying to get them to let even us connect to them. The main
use of that link was soon their people using our gateway to get out.
Their own first CICNet connection a year ago would never have been
authorized if they couldn't get a low-cost R&E rate based on using it
with research they sponsor at universities. Now they are upgrading it
for commercial use.
CICNet puts them on the ANS side, I think, but they would *create*
hundreds of commercial customers. Will they be able to reach those
customers regardless of service providers ?
BTW, they are now reading com-priv, so you can tell them right here.
Marty, if you were the CIX board member who felt it was good for the
community to route to/from ANS, you were right. Steve Wolff, if you're
reading this, I think it would also be good for the community to
require that the commercial provider of NSFNet be a CIX member. Bill
Washburn, I know nothing of what you'd require of ANS, but putting the
terms up for public scrutiny would go a long ways toward making sure no
axes are being ground in the process.
Bill Schrader and I started the process of trying to get ALL of ANS and
ANS CO+RE connected, when we handed off the ball after too much effort,
time and money what got done was a shadow of our objectives.
It was the best that ANS could do at the time.
But we hope for something better to happen soon.
but again this is not about ANS, this is about government policy
Marty
