[8592] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX connectivity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postm)
Thu Nov 25 01:41:15 1993
From: "Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postmaster) <fair@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <9311201856.AA00663@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com>
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 22:40:37 -0800
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 13:56:50 EST
From: stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
Subject: Re: CIX connectivity
But an AUP, the one for NSFNET at least, is an Acceptable *Use*
Policy. It is not an Acceptable *Routing* Policy. The NSFNET
AUP explicitly allows commercial use in support of R&E, which
is equivalent to implicitly allowing routing between NSFNET
nodes and commercial nets.
The AUP imposes no restrictions at all on routing. Why some
people have claimed it does can only be guessed at, but one can
note that such a view is convenient for adherents to some
political philosophies about the role of government.
It has always seemed to me that agreement to abide by the NSFNET AUP
is a *precondition* to having one's networks routed over the NSFNET
backbone.
Put another way: if a site's network adminstrator has not signed off on
the NSFNET AUP, why should their network be routed on the NSFNET
backbone? I believe that they should not be.
If you want to be pedantic about where the NSFNET AUP applies, you can
replace "NSFNET backbone" with "NSFNET-sponsored network attachment points."
Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
