North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II

  • From: Alan Hannan
  • Date: Thu Oct 10 22:47:55 1996 
  Hola,

> There seems to be a confusion between private leaf networks (which nobody
> generally cares about) and the major backbone (as I-2 advocates portray it).

> Nobody cares about AUPs in leaf networks.  AUPs in transit backbones
> are evil.  Or everybody already forgot NSFNET AUP and the tons of
> related hackery in routing policies all around the world?

  The interesting thing to me below is the assumption that there is
  an inherent difference between a transit backbone and a private
  leaf network.  Other than the likely lack of separate ASes within
  a leaf network, the difference is the policy of the network, in
  addition to the topoligical contiguity to other folks.  Certainly
  this is significant.  Yes I _know_ one could say that a backbone doesn't 
  have any real destinations on it, but the distinction is rather
  vague.  Clearly with loose source routing, one could make most
  any (properly unfiltered) leaf node network a transit network, if
  there were some motivation for doing this (but there wouldn't be,
  would there? :)

  I believe Manning makes a good point that an AUP is inherent to a
  network.

  We have seen an increase in the discussions of AUP with respect to
  backbones (MCI/SL/UU).  The discussions regarding dumping defaults
  and forced routing to destinations not advertised all centered
  around AUP.

> Actually, that Clinton's network "initiative" is entirely in line with
> their other efforts to curb the free flow of information -- particularly
> at the place where there is a contingent of young people who would be
> affected most by the information.  It is no secret that political views
> ofmost people who have spent some time with Internet tend to shift to
> more libertaran, as they get taste for free communication not generally
> afforded by the "democratic" system.  Hence the effective opposition to
> the encryption policy and CDA.  Sure as hell, after such embarrasment
> the administation does not like intelligentsia to have a voice.

  While the case is there, it is not that strong.  I think Sagan calls it a 
  pseudoscientific argument....

> Don't fool yourself.  The I-2 is not the "faster Internet".  It is
> a tool to force those pesky free-thinkers to shut up.

  Maybe.  More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education
  institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).  
  I don't blindly accept the altruistic guise under which it was presented,
  but I do think there are sig. other reasons beyond government
  control.  

  (On the other hand, Vadim does have more history on this than I
  do...)

  $0.02 rubles,

  Alan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -