[9936] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
NSF AUP restrictions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lars Poulsen)
Thu Jan 27 22:25:33 1994
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 00:39:57 +0100
From: lars@eskimo.cph.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen)
To: bstarn@ccs.carleton.ca
In-Reply-To: <9401271628.AA26751@superior.YP.nobel>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In article <9401271628.AA26751@superior.YP.nobel> bstarn@ccs.carleton.ca
writes:
>The CANARIE Inc. Operational Network Product / Services (ONPS)
>Committee has identified as a funding priorities the development of
>capabilities to facilitate the Access, Presentation, and Exchange of
>Information on the operational network as follows:
It is my fervent hope that Canarie Inc will soon identify as a
funding priority a policy-free access to CIX. So far I have
not found any sites with a .CA domain address that are reachable
for my non-NSF-AUP-compliant traffic.
In general, the CIX routing is not nearly as solid as the CIX members
would have us believe. In part, this is because the major CIX transit
networks still point their default routes to NSF rather than to CIX.
A few days ago, the EUNET link from Amsterdam to
Falls-Church.VA.ALTER.NET was out of operation for a while. As designed,
routing fell back to EBONE, and traffic from EUnet went via the SPRINT
link from Paris into ALTER.NET, but most of the US was unreachable
to me. It took a while to sort out why I could not reach CERFnet,
when I could reach UUNET, and CERFnet could reach UUNET via CIX.
Russ Nelson hits it on the head, when he says that everyone signs the
AUP and then say that their IP service provider has sold them policy
free global connectivity, because the service provider is a CIX member.
"So if it goes through NSF anyway, its not my fault."
Well, my service provider is a CIX member, but they do not guarantee
policy free connectivity. On the contrary, the AUP contract addendum
makes it my responsibility that I not traverse NSFnet in violation of
AUP. When I exchange business correspondence with a Canadian
manufacturer of computer equipment, I am fairly sure it is not AUP
compliant, but the traffic would go through NSFnet if I had signed
the AUP. So in fact the only way to comply with the AUP is to not
be registered as AUP compliant. Of course, that means I can't
communicate.
There are 3 ways out of this mess:
1) Tighten the filter dramatically, so that policy is enforced
correctly: I.e. traffic from .COM to .COM gets dropped
even if both have signed the AUP. This would get everyone connected
to CIX very quickly. It would of course be very painful in the
meantime.
2) Eliminate NSFnet very quickly. While I would agree that it is too
late in the game to do it by April 1 of 1994. I think is is doable by
July 1 if we really want to. Simply tell each regional that their
NSF-paid ANS attachment goes away by date XXX but there is a pool
of money to reimburse them in part or in whole for documented
expenses to replace that connection. The traffic counts are well
enough documented that each of the major transit service providers
should be able to bid for each attachment.
3) Abandon the AUP under the cover that since it has been decided in
principle to shift the funding to the regionals etc etc the AUP
is only temporary anyway, and in the present crunch of routing tables
it has been deemed that the burden of administering this policy
information in the BGP routing protocol prevents the necessary
coalescing of address block in the CIDR (Classless InterDomain
Routing) system.
Yes there is a fourth possibility. I could sign the same paper as
everybody else, with no intention of abiding by it. ... but that
would be cheating!!
--
/ Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM
CMC Network Products Phone: (011-) +45-31 49 81 08
Hvidovre Strandvej 72 B Telefax: +45-31 49 83 08
DK-2650 Hvidovre, DENMARK Internets: designed and built while you wait
