244 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
244 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
########## ########## ########## |
|
|
########## ########## ########## |
|
|
#### #### #### |
|
|
######## ######## ######## | THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
|
|
######## ######## ######## |
|
|
#### #### #### |
|
|
########## #### #### |
|
|
########## #### #### |
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
EFFector Online August 19, 1992 Issue 3.2
|
|
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
|
ISSN 1062-9424
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
GETTING A HANDLE ON THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
|
|
by Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org)
|
|
|
|
A Report on the July 23 Meeting
|
|
of the Communications Policy Forum
|
|
in Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
|
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for the NSFNet.
|
|
Originally a network created to link a handful of supercomputing
|
|
centers serving the U.S. research and education community, NSFNet
|
|
became the backbone of the Internet in this country, now serving
|
|
millions of people and thousands of organizations. Since 1987, the
|
|
NSF has contracted with a partnership of Merit Network, Inc., IBM
|
|
and MCI to provide and manage these "backbone network services.
|
|
That contract will expire in November of this year.
|
|
|
|
In order to award a contract for the next phase of the NSFNet's
|
|
growth and management, NSF staff is preparing a solicitation that
|
|
will describe the network that the NSF wants and invite interested
|
|
organizations to bid to become the provider of those services.
|
|
However, before releasing the final solicitation that will be bid
|
|
on, the NSF released a draft and asked for public comment on it.
|
|
Comments were to be filed by August 3rd of this year.
|
|
|
|
In response to this, EFF, which administers the Communications
|
|
Policy Forum in Washington, DC convened a roundtable on July 23 to
|
|
bring together a wide cross-section of groups that would either be
|
|
bidding on the new contract or would be affected by its outcome.
|
|
Also attending the meeting were members of the NSF staff. The
|
|
meeting itself, in order to stimulate an open exchange of views, was
|
|
"off-the-record" in that while notes on the sense of the speakers
|
|
were maintained, no speaker was directly quoted.
|
|
|
|
The Proposed New Shape of NSFNet
|
|
|
|
The Draft Solicitation describes a new architecture for the NSFNet.
|
|
It specifies certain requirements for those who are interested in
|
|
providing these services.
|
|
|
|
Until now, the "backbone network services" that lie at the heart of
|
|
the NSFNet worked as a single package. This package was a trunk for
|
|
connecting regional or "mid-level" networks across the country. It
|
|
was provided by an organization that also controlled access to the
|
|
backbone and directed traffic on it. In recent years, this
|
|
arrangement created a sense of unfairness among competitors in the
|
|
independent commercial sector who are eager to provide network
|
|
services and Internet connections.
|
|
|
|
In order to address these and other concerns, the Draft Solicitation
|
|
proposes that the next generation will split this package into two
|
|
distinct units. The first unit would be a "very high speed backbone"
|
|
or "vBNS". The second unit would provide a number of "network access
|
|
points" or "NAPs." The entity responsible for providing the NAPs
|
|
will also be the Routing Authority that oversees network traffic.
|
|
|
|
The draft also specifies some requirements for the new architecture.
|
|
First the vBNS must operate at 155 mbps or higher. Second, it must
|
|
connect to all NAPs. Third, it must provide high speed interregional
|
|
connectivity. Fourth it must be restricted to research and education
|
|
traffic only. Fifth, the NAPs must operate at speeds of at least 100
|
|
mbps, may connect any number of networks to each other or the vBNS,
|
|
and are open to any kind of traffic. Finally, the vBNS provider and
|
|
the NAP manager must be two different entities.
|
|
|
|
Reactions at the CPF
|
|
|
|
Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion at
|
|
the July 23rd CPF meeting.
|
|
|
|
First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding about
|
|
some of the draft's key elements. Among items mentioned were such
|
|
basic questions as what is a NAP, what is the vBNS, how will they
|
|
relate, are there ways of connecting to the vBNS without going
|
|
through a NAP, how many NAPs will there be and where will they be
|
|
located, what will it cost to connect to a NAP and how will charges
|
|
be set?
|
|
|
|
Second, it became clear that there were many important issues about
|
|
which the NSF remained "intentionally silent." Most obviously, the
|
|
draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids will be evaluated. In
|
|
addition, the draft is silent about how this generation of the
|
|
NSFNet intersects with the development of the NREN. It does not
|
|
suggest how prices for NAP attachment will be set, and when. The
|
|
draft fails to address the procedure for starting a non-NSF
|
|
sponsored NAP and connecting to the vBNS. The draft also fails to
|
|
illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no longer
|
|
"experimental" and can be provided commercially without further
|
|
government funding.
|
|
|
|
Additional issues came from the various constituencies around the
|
|
table who brought with them very different concerns. For example,
|
|
the research and education community appreciated that the draft
|
|
seemed to make it easier to access commercial services through the
|
|
Internet, yet expressed concern that the new architecture would
|
|
disrupt the regional arrangements that allow costs to be shared.
|
|
These cost sharing arrangements, they argue, foster more widespread
|
|
connectivity, and disrupting them could reduce rather than increase
|
|
the number of networked institutions.
|
|
|
|
Commercial network service providers expressed a range of opinions.
|
|
Some supported the basic architecture, although suggested certain
|
|
modifications, such as that the Routing Authority be separate from
|
|
the entity that manages the NAPs. Others argued that the draft
|
|
continues to unfairly distort the marketplace for network services
|
|
by subsidizing standard connections such as e-mail.
|
|
|
|
Local telephone companies, who have not previously been involved in
|
|
the development of the NSFNet, pointed out that the NSF was
|
|
proposing a new commercial network without taking into account the
|
|
infrastructure and regulatory boundaries of the nation's local
|
|
exchange telephone companies. Since the breakup of the Bell System,
|
|
for example, the Baby Bells cannot transport traffic across certain
|
|
regional boundaries. If the NSF's architecture does not put a NAP
|
|
in every one of these regions, then these network providers are
|
|
automatically excluded from full participation.
|
|
|
|
Following the meeting, the EFF staff prepared a summary of the major
|
|
issues that arose during the course of the discussion and circulated
|
|
it to all those in attendance. The EFF also submitted it to the NSF as
|
|
a record of important concerns that the EFF believes should be
|
|
considered in preparing the final solicitation. In addition, the EFF
|
|
asked the NSF to resubmit a draft solicitation for public comment
|
|
before issuing a final version.
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
|
|
Want more information?
|
|
|
|
For more information about the NSFNet draft solicitation and bidding
|
|
process, contact our Washington office at eff.org. DC staff members
|
|
Danny Weitzner(djw@eff.org) and Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org), as well as
|
|
Jerry Berman (jberman@eff.org), the Director of the Washington office,
|
|
have all been working on this issue.
|
|
|
|
About the Communications Policy Forum
|
|
|
|
The Communications Policy Forum, a project administered by the EFF,
|
|
provides consumer and public interest groups, telecommunications
|
|
companies, computer industry groups and policy makers a common forum
|
|
in which to discuss telecommunications issues and exchange views in
|
|
a non-partisan setting. The CPF also undertakes non-partisan
|
|
research. It is co-sponsored with the Consumer Federation of
|
|
America and the ACLU.
|
|
|
|
-==--==--==-<-==--==--==-
|
|
|
|
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
|
|
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
|
|
becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter,
|
|
EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you
|
|
have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and
|
|
special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we
|
|
believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these
|
|
things even if you do not elect to become a member.
|
|
|
|
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for
|
|
regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
|
|
|
|
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under
|
|
any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from
|
|
time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose
|
|
work we determine to be in line with our goals. If you do not grant
|
|
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership
|
|
disclosed to any group for any reason.
|
|
|
|
---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------
|
|
|
|
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
|
|
155 Second St. #32
|
|
Cambridge, MA 02141
|
|
|
|
I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________
|
|
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
|
|
$40.00 (regular membership)
|
|
$100.00(Corporate or company membership.
|
|
This allows any organization to
|
|
become a member of EFF. It allows
|
|
such an organization, if it wishes
|
|
to designate up to five individuals
|
|
within the organization as members.)
|
|
|
|
| I enclose an additional donation of $___________
|
|
|
|
Name:______________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Organization:______________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Address: __________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
City or Town: _____________________________________________
|
|
|
|
State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional)
|
|
|
|
FAX:( )____________________(optional)
|
|
|
|
Email address: ______________________________
|
|
|
|
I enclose a check [ ] .
|
|
Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________
|
|
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
|
|
|
|
Number:____________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Expiration date: ____________
|
|
|
|
Signature: ________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Date:______________________
|
|
|
|
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
|
|
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
|
|
appropriate [ ] .
|
|
Initials:___________________________
|
|
|
|
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
EFFector Online is published by
|
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
|
155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141
|
|
Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866
|
|
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
|
|
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged
|
|
To reproduce signed articles individually,
|
|
please contact the authors for their express permission.
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
|