[9314] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: press references to NSF getting out of intnet funding
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Russell Nelson)
Tue Dec 28 22:56:12 1993
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 22:23:25 EST
From: "Russell Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com>
To: "Stephen Wolff" <steve@mon.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
On Tue, 28 Dec 1993 11:08:53 -0600 (EST), "Stephen Wolff" <steve@mon.cise.nsf.gov> wrote:
> > And to make things even more interesting, The University of York,
> > Heslington York, UK, just signed up for packet driver support.
> > I think you'd agree that they're a "good" non-profit user. But
> > they're not allowed to use the NSF backbone either.
>
> The University of York uses NSFNET Backbone Services consistent with paragraph
> (2) of the AUP.
I hate to contradict you, since you of all people should know what
the AUP says and what it means, but it seems to me that it's the US
R&E community that gets to use the NSFNET Backbone Services to
communicate with foreign R&E, not US companies.
> > We should get rid of the AUP because very few people obey it ...
>
> We should get rid of the AUP when there is nothing left to which it
> applies, OR when it's OK to use taxpayer money that's been given to the
> National Science Foundation for the support of research and education, for
> other purposes.
So then the AUP is an effect, not a cause. Hmmm, I think I'm
starting to understand this, especially since someone from a major
NOC asked me to call him and he explained it to me. Basically, your
regional network needs both CIX and NSFNET connectivity in order to
reach everyone. ... ... No, wait, that means that everyone has two
routes to everyone else. That would explain the traceroute that
someone reported today. No, that's not right either, because routes
to non-AUP-signing hosts should only be advertised over the CIX,
whereas routes to AUP-compliant hosts can be advertised over both CIX
and NSFNET.
So if NBC.COM signed off on the AUP, and they want to talk to MIT, it
can go over the NSFNET. So MIT only needs CIX connectivity in order
to talk to non-AUP-signing hosts. But wait, that still means that
there are two routes between AUP-signing commercial hosts. There's
no bit in IP packets that says "stay off the NSFNET", so a CIX &
NSFNET-connected regional must have to have two internal backbones,
one for commercial and the other for R&E. That, or their router's
algorithm has to take the source of the packet into account (which
provides the "stay off the NSFNET" information).
Ahhh, the brave new world of IP routing. I think I understand how it
works technically. Now I have to figure out how it works politically!
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | 315-268-1925 (-9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
