IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISPACs

"Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com> Sun, 08 December 1996 06:12 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id ak05039; 8 Dec 96 1:12 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15218; 7 Dec 96 18:25 EST
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA11732 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:38:56 +1100
Received: from justin.erols.com (justin.erols.com [205.252.116.48]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA29922; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961207174419.00f30540@justin.erols.com>
X-Sender: justin@justin.erols.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 17:44:20 -0500
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com>
Subject: Re: ISPACs
Cc: cidrd@iepg.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
>I was suggesting setup 2, as that would seem to be what you'd be most
>comfortable with.  Except that the "interconnect provider" _is_ the ISPAC
>administration.  I'm missing why you're uncomfortable with this.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with that, that is more or less what the
current internet model is right?  I buy transit from someone and they give
me IP addresses, how does this differ from the current provider based model
aside from changing the name of the provider to ISPAC administration?

>
>Tony
>
>
>

Justin Newton
Network Architect
Erol's Internet Services

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email