Re: ISPACs

[Paul Resnick <[e-mail]>]

>   >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?
>
>Simple... rather than being at their business whim (admittedly as a
>customer), you have direct input.  You're a partner.

Tony's answer suggests that an ISPAC is an upstream interconnect provider
collectively owned by the downstream ISPs. If I'm interpreting correctly,
then the proposal is a purely business innovation, and not a technical one
at all. I have no problem with that, but I want to make sure I'm
understanding correctly.

------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnick			AT&T Labs
Public Policy Research		Room 2C-430A
908-582-5370 (voice)		600 Mountain Avenue
908-582-4113 (fax)		P.O. Box 636
[e-mail]	Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
http://www.research.att.com/~presnick