IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISPACs

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> Fri, 13 December 1996 01:25 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa12462; 12 Dec 96 20:25 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01415; 12 Dec 96 20:25 EST
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (brookfield-ef0.brookfield.ans.net [204.148.1.20]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA02074 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:51:34 +1100
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (localhost.brookfield.ans.net [127.0.0.1]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA16422; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:49:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199612122349.SAA16422@brookfield.ans.net>
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
cc: presnick@research.att.com, justin@erols.com, cidrd@iepg.org
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
Subject: Re: ISPACs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 08 Dec 1996 16:19:59 PST." <199612090019.QAA28014@chimp.jnx.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:49:35 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>

In message <199612090019.QAA28014@chimp.jnx.com>, Tony Li writes:
> 
>    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.
> 
> Largely yes.  It has some quasi-technical effects, such as address
> allocation to the ISPAC as an organizational entity.
> 
> Tony


Which is technically the same as allocation to an upstream provider
which we already have.  So this proposal offers nothing new from a
technical standpoint and is purely a proposal for a business model.
It is a business model that is arguably undesirable from a business
standpoint.  Regardless of whether or not it is a good business model,
RFCs are not the way to propose business models.

Curtis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email