Interesting People mailing list archives
a bit more on ANS, CIX -- a good argument and set of observations
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 20:09:15 -0500
Posted-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 19:34:41 -0500 From: cook () path net (Gordon Cook) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 00:34:38 GMT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: farber () central cis upenn edu Subject: for int peop This is a revised and expanded version of what I posted to com-priv last night. It may be cross posted to other lists as long as it it posted in full with no edits. ANS joins the CIX! Good news indeed. What does this do to level the commercial market place? And does it mean that there is still an ANSnet AUP? 1. Let's say Toys R Us wants to join the internet and that universal connectivity is VERY important for Toys R Us. It can connect as a PSI or Alternet or other CIX customer and now be assured of getting to every mid-level via the ansnet backbone? It sends commercial traffic wherever it wishes including anywhere in the CIX. Right? 2. Lets say it wants to join ANS - which now also is the CIX. If it connects at a CNSS backbone site, it pays whatever rate it can negotiate with ANS and sends commercial traffic wherever it wishes. If on the other hand it connects at an ENSS site or via a mid-level it must pay the 2,000 or 4,000 dollar charge to the infrastructure pool depending on whether the link is 56k or t-1? And once it does this it sends commercial traffic wherever it wishes including anywhere in the CIX? Right? ' 3. Or lets say it connects to a mid-level. If it does this it is free to use ANS backbone routing as soon as it ponies up the 2 or 4 thousand dollar surcharge? It can send commercial traffic anywhere it wishes except to other CIX networks not also attached to ANSnet? But if Toys R Us is connected to a mid-level that is a cix member, then it can use its and ANS's CIX membership to traverse the ANSnet backbone if it needs to? (WITHOUT paying the 2 or 4 k dollar surcharge?) And it sends commercial traffic wherever it wishes? What about the mid-level (regionals) who are NOT members of the CIX? They may provide connectivity for their commercial customers to all the other commercial customers of all other ANSnet connected regionals by paying the 2 to 4 thousand dollar a year surcharge to ANS. However their commercial customers would still be blocked from getting to customers of CIX member networks not also attached to the NSFnet backbone? Why? Because they are customers of a non CIX member network. Under such circumstances it seems that it will be to the advantage of the regionals to join the CIX rather than pay ANS the commercial surcharges (aka transit fees)? A regional would have to have *very* few commercial customers and be located in the middle of the US before the line charge to cix east or cix west and cix membership would wind up being more than the cost of buying transit from ANS. Besides if a regional (mid-level) joined CIX rather than paying ANS the transit charges, the regional would get greater connectivity for its commercial clients. Net effect: the internet is far less balkanized. The NSFnet AUP is de-facto dead -- unless that is ANS can convince a customer to sign up in a situation where it is liable for having to pay the infrastructure pool commercial surcharge. I conclude that ANS is *unlikely to keep the surcharges* in effect because they will now place it at a marketplace disadvantage and that the NSF AUP is once more at long last dead - de facto if not de-jure. By the way what happened to the transit fees that NEARnet and BARRnet customers are paying for ANSnet transit? Seems like they should not have to pay them anymore since ANS by virtue of being a CIX member now has to carry their commercial traffic? What are the implications for Russian routing? If every CIX member must route to every other, can NSFnet routing to Russia still be refused? I hope not. Are my conclusions incorrect? If so would people please point out where and why? PS. Seems like some of the most serious aberrations of the last 3 years are on their way to being fixed. With the kinks almost out of the current architecture, isn't it a shame that the NSF is being allowed to impose the new architecture on us all. Are we really powerless to STOP this imposition? _______________________________________________________________ Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 cook () path net (609) 882-2572 _______________________________________________________________
Current thread:
- a bit more on ANS, CIX -- a good argument and set of observations David Farber (Nov 20)