IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISPACs

Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Sun, 08 December 1996 11:01 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10956; 8 Dec 96 6:01 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05706; 8 Dec 96 6:01 EST
Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA14491 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:52:39 +1100
Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA18132; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA26927; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:52:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199612080852.AAA26927@chimp.jnx.com>
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: justin@erols.com
CC: cidrd@iepg.org
In-reply-to: <3.0b36.32.19961207174419.00f30540@justin.erols.com>
Subject: Re: ISPACs

   >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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email