So what you're saying then is that you are not an independant entity and are require to follow federal policy.

NSF has a policy against it. that has nothing to do with legality.

NSF also has a policy against carrying commercial traffic? Did you adopt that?

You are not being conservative. You're way into paranoid.

So, to sum up, ANS is discriminating against users of a network because of their natural origin and there is no basis in law to support this position. Pretty xenophobic for a group that claims to be an international provider.

Now I've seen everything. Gordan Cook forging mail as Rick Adams. ;-) As I understand it this represents a compromise between the policy that the regionals and other direct attachments are required to enforce their applicable APU in whatever way they see fit (which in some cases is to do nothing more than issue a statment to users that outlines the AUP), and the strong sentiment among government agencies and the NSF not to have the xSU net announced until they are prepared to deal with it more thoroughly than plain vanilla commercial traffic. Whether this has basis in NSF policy or law is not something that Mark (or I) really cares that much about (unless it does turn out to be based on law and we get into big trouble). I'm not sure if this is even permanent, but I suspect (speculation alert!!!) that once there is a technical solution that prevents routing between the feds doing there state of the art FIX default route thing (and anyone else that doesn't want to talk to them), and the other major international providers doing their default route thing, we might just pipe the xSU net in and let them do business in the US and talk to US R&Es that are willing to talk to them. Until then we will be exersizing prejudice against the xSU. What are we talking about here folks - one class C net? If you need access to that net right now, join the CIX - 'cause ye can't get thar frm here. Curtis <<<INSERT BIG DISCLAIMER HERE - I don't speak for ANS>>>