If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help? I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy. I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG. -s
Steve: Sounds like a fine idea to me. Aren't we also just talking about a few remaining months of the NSFNET Backbone, after which the issue would become irrelevant anyway? So doing what you are saying seems to also help with the transition? Hans-Werner
If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?
I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy.
I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG.
-s
continuing my bridge analogy you are now providing glider service from the river bank to the bridge not very useful for that Teamster driven truck m
If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?
I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy.
I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG.
-s
continuing my bridge analogy
you are now providing glider service from the river bank to the bridge
not very useful for that Teamster driven truck
m
Marty - Sorry, but that's now TWO bridge analogies I don't understand. Could you please be a little more explicit? Tnx, -s
A safer position, which would be easier for many people to swallow, would be to retain the AUP as a legal entropy, but lift the requirement to use routing to enforce it. (Oops I mean entity. Talk about Freud!). A further refinement: allow the case where commercial traffic traverses the NSFnet becasue routing technology is not sufficient to support an existing entirely commercial path between subscribers, as long as there are contracts and sufficient facilitys in place to support the path. --MM--
... A further refinement: allow the case where commercial traffic traverses the NSFnet becasue routing technology is not sufficient to support an existing entirely commercial path between subscribers, as long as there are contracts and sufficient facilitys in place to support the path.
Matt - Good point. In fact I had to make a qualification like that just to get Counsel off the ceiling and start talking to me. Tnx, -s
If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?
I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy.
I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG.
I see no reason to waiver the AUP. Essentially adherence to the AUP has been based on an honor system up to now, and I don't see any reason why this should change. What would make sense is to: - have all interested service providers sign a (formal?) agreement that they will inform their customers of the restrictions on usage of the NSFnet backbone service (possibly adding an explicit pointer to the AUP in their contracts). - do away with the PRDB / NACR's. I really don't see how this would significantly change the current situation (expect that we would all have less work). Simon Poole
- do away with the PRDB / NACR's.
I would not want to see these go away, rather they should and need to be reshaped. NSFNET policy was hardly the sole reason for setting NACRs up in the first place. An important goal was to establish sound routing in the NSFNET and for the networks attached to the NSFNET. By recasting the process to reflect the global and multi-provider nature of the Internet into "routing registries" the sound routing goal can be met in a distributed manner. My understanding is that this is already in progress due to the efforts of Merit, RIPE and the APNIC. peter
I cant speak for everyone else, but I welcome the waiving of the AUP for this purpose. And no, I wont yank my CIX connection till the dust settles on the new architecture. This will however open up a whole bunch of routing asymetry and related trouble shooting problems. --pushpendra Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908 Director of Engineering pushp@sdsc.bitnet +1 800 876 2373 CERFNet Stephen Wolff writes:
If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?
I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy.
I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG.
-s
participants (7)
-
hwb＠upeksa.sdsc.edu -
Martin Lee Schoffstall -
Matt Mathis -
Peter S. Ford -
poole＠eunet.ch -
Pushpendra Mohta -
Stephen Wolff