[ih] NO "settlements" as part of Internet History
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Sep 13 15:18:27 PDT 2020
Indeed. In fact, just now I looked for the oldest message from Vint
in my archive to see what route it had followed. It was one SMTP hop
from CNRI.Reston.VA.US to CERN, and in 1991 that had to be via our
link to the NSFnet at Cornell.
What we had to do was make an honest effort to respect the NSFnet
acceptable use policy. Nobody except perhaps the money people
expected it to be watertight.
Just for fun:
1) The path of a message from Vint to me in 1991, one SMTP hop,
presumably via NSFnet:
From vcerf at NRI.Reston.VA.US Sat Dec 14 22:52:50 1991
Received: by cernvax.cern.ch (5.57/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA16635; Sat, 14 Dec 91 22:52:48 +0100
Received: by dxmint.cern.ch (cernvax) (5.57/3.14)
id AA26448; Sat, 14 Dec 91 22:50:42 +0100
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12620;
14 Dec 91 16:44 EST
1) Bill Bostwick to me in 1991, avoiding NSFnet since he was funded
by DoE not NSF:
From bostwick%darpa.mil at Lbl.Bitnet Fri Oct 11 14:55:28 1991
Received: by cernvax.cern.ch (5.57/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA18358; Fri, 11 Oct 91 14:55:02 +0100
Received: by dxmint.cern.ch (cernvax) (5.57/3.14)
id AA20906; Fri, 11 Oct 91 14:54:43 +0100
Received: from CEARN.cern.ch by CEARN.cern.ch (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with BSMTP id 5184; Fri, 11 Oct 91 14:41:03 GVA
Received: from Lbl.Bitnet by CEARN.cern.ch (Mailer R2.07B) with BSMTP id 5156;
Fri, 11 Oct 91 14:41:02 GVA
Received: from Csa2.LBL.Gov by Csa3.LBL.Gov with INTERNET ;
Fri, 11 Oct 91 06:39:01 PDT
Received: from lbl.gov by Csa2.LBL.Gov with INTERNET ;
Fri, 11 Oct 91 06:34:51 PDT
Received: from vax.darpa.mil (darpa.mil) by lbl.gov (4.1/1.39)
id AA00902; Fri, 11 Oct 91 06:38:29 PDT
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (5.61/5.61+local-4)
id <AA22338>; Fri, 11 Oct 91 09:34:21 -0400
3) Charlie Catlett to me in 1991, certainly via NSFnet in one SMTP hop:
From catlett at ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri Sep 27 16:15:04 1991
Received: by cernvax.cern.ch (5.57/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA11057; Fri, 27 Sep 91 16:15:00 +0200
Received: by dxmint.cern.ch (cernvax) (5.57/3.14)
id AA01197; Fri, 27 Sep 91 16:12:58 +0200
Received: from headroom.ncsa.uiuc.edu by bardeen.ncsa.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA01605
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2 for brian at cernvax.cern.ch); Fri, 27 Sep 91 09:15:11 -0500
Return-Path: <catlett at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Received: by headroom.ncsa.uiuc.edu (4.1/NCSA-4.1)
id AA03413; Fri, 27 Sep 91 09:15:10 CDT
Regards
Brian
On 14-Sep-20 09:42, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote:
> vis-a-vis "We weren't supposed to use NSFnet to access .com addresses..." but what about .US addresses?
>
> as a part of Internet History: yours truly registered the first host in the .US domain (fernwood.mpk.ca.us <http://fernwood.mpk.ca.us>) for Anterior Technology -- which was the 2nd commercial internet business connected to the Internet via BARRNET (our local NSF regional network provider) a half half block away from SRI in Menlo Park back in 1989 out of a spare bedroom on a MIPS M1000 computer.
>
> prior to Anterior morphing into wireless email (RadioMail), Anterior started it's commercial business providing moderated USENET feeds (the In Moderation Network) as well as offering commercial dialup/dialout UUCP (for mail and USENET) connections to local businesses viz.:
> https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/news-track-QKpCn05nS0
>
> ERGO, don't see how "policy" routing based on a domain name would "guarantee" the non-commercialness of said traffic, especially In Those Days when (via UUCP) email addresses could take the form of foo!bar at fernwood.mpk.ca.us <mailto:bar at fernwood.mpk.ca.us> (or any other UUCP to net relay host).
>
> geoff
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:58 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Vint,
>
> That sounds as if there was seen to be a distinction between email flows
> (human to human communication) and data flows (machine to machine). When
> we at CERN discussed connections and costs with Steve Goldstein at NSF,
> it was in the context of bulk scientific data transfer (for American
> physicists associated with CERN experiments). We weren't supposed to use
> NSFnet to access .com addresses, but prior to BGP4 that was a bit of a
> problem and "policy based routing" was a constant talking point.
>
> Harvey Newman (then and now at Caltech) used to say "Every grad student
> needs 64 kb/s" and that was how we calculated capacity requirements around
> 1990. We all knew that email was important, but we all knew that money
> was granted for scientific data transfer.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 14-Sep-20 00:02, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > Brian,
> > in 1988 the then Federal Networking Council (or its predecessor, the FRICC) gave me permission to connect the commercial MCI Mail to the NSFNET backbone. This connection occurred in 1989, the same year that UUNET, PSINET and CERFNET came into operation and, I think, interconnected at the CIX. Other email services (Compuserve, OnTyme, Telemail) were also given permission to connect. In 1992 legislation was passed to allow this formally (Boucher Bill I thinik?).
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 11:12 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
> >
> > In my humble (non-American) opinion, some of the arguments made at that
> > time were very self-serving. I think that Guy Almes and Steve Goldstein
> > between them could explain better than me, but NSFnet always had an
> > acceptable use policy that (since it was taxpayer-funded) only allowed
> > "free" transit for traffic to or from a legitimate NSF user, i.e. one end
> > or both ends of a flow had to be a research site. Clearly the taxpayer
> > shouldn't pay for business-to-business traffic, and that fact was the
> > business case for creating CIX.
> >
> > Neither NSFnet nor CIX was free of course; they just had very different
> > funding sources. It was my understanding at the time that ANS CO+RE was
> > created precisely to avoid cross-subsidy from NSF money. They did have
> > the advantage of knowledge transfer.
> >
> > (All of this was of intense interest to us at CERN as we hosted a
> > transatlantic link to NSFnet and we too had to ensure that the NSFnet
> > AUP was respected. So we followed it pretty closely.)
> >
> > Of course the idea that there are no settlements in the Internet is
> > a bit ridiculous. There are no settlements per "call" but connections
> > to transit providers and/or IXPs cost money.
> >
> > Regards
> > Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 11-Sep-20 12:21, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:42 AM *Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> > > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>>> wrote*
> > > :
> > >
> > >> CCITT was working on X.25, and creating X.75, to interconnect their
> > >> networks. It was a natural evolution of the PTT's prior interconnection
> > >> of their telephone networks. Later, as DDN marched down the X.25 path,
> > >> the subsequent government Internet might have ended up based on
> > >> X.25/X.75. If it worked.
> > >>
> > >
> > > part and parcel of the X.25 and X.75 networking shibboleth was the notion
> > > of "settlements" -- just like with the PTT's interconnection of their
> > > telephone networks -- where The Fee for/of Transit was split along a
> > > "calls" participants/networks transited.
> > >
> > > IIRC, Advanced Network and Services (ANS) tried to "imprint" the
> > > settlements model on the fledgling Internet -- with them In The Middle
> > > collecting a fee for transit (for commercial traffic) between networks as
> > > well as for interconnection with The Budding commercial Internet upstarts
> > > (PSI, ALTERNET, etc.) the resulting in the founding of the CIX, viz.:
> > >
> > >
> > > *Data Network Raises Monopoly Fear*
> > > By JOHN MARKOFF
> > > The New York Times
> > > December 19, 1991
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/1991
> > > /12/19/business/data-network-raises-monopoly-fear.html
> > >
> > > Soon after President Bush signed legislation calling for the creation of a
> > > nationwide computer data "superhighway," a debate has erupted over whether
> > > the Government gave an unfair advantage to a joint venture of I.B.M. MCI
> > > that built and manages a key part of the network.
> > >
> > > The venture, known as Advanced Network and Services, manages a network
> > > called NSFnet, which connects hundreds of research centers and
> > > universities. NSFnet also manages links to dozens of other countries. All
> > > these networks are collectively known as Internet.
> > >
> > > Some private competitors say Advanced Network and Services uses its favored
> > > position to squeeze them out of the data-transmission market by
> > > establishing rules that make it difficult to connect to NSFnet.
> > >
> > > *Traffic Has Doubled*
> > >
> > > NSFnet was founded by the National Science Foundation, a Federal agency,
> > > and is composed of leased telephone lines that link special computers
> > > called routers, which transmit packages of data to three million users in
> > > 33 countries. Data traffic over the NSFnet backbone has doubled in the last
> > > year.
> > >
> > > The Government wants to develop a national data highway for electronic
> > > commerce, digital video transmissions to homes and vast electronic
> > > libraries that could be drawn on by the nation's schools.
> > >
> > > Advanced Network and Services, based in Elmsford, N.Y., was set up last
> > > year as a nonprofit corporation with $10 million from the International
> > > Business Machines Corporation and the MCI Communications Corporation.
> > > Earlier this year it set up a for-profit subsidiary, called ANS CO+RE
> > > (pronounced core), to sell computer network services. That led some
> > > competitors to complain that Advanced Network and Services would be able to
> > > compete unfairly because of its arrangement with the Government.
> > >
> > > *Fear Loss of Innovation*
> > >
> > > People involved in planning for a national data network say it is essential
> > > to provide for fair competition, which will lead rival companies to offer
> > > creative and entrepreneurial services in the hope of building market share.
> > > Without competiton, they say, the Government will have created a monopoly
> > > that has little incentive to innovate.
> > >
> > > "This is the first major communication business to be born under the
> > > deregulation era," said David Farber, a computer scientist at the
> > > University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in data networking. "This hasn't
> > > happened since the growth of the telephone industry. You want it to be a
> > > business that doesn't repeat the errors of the past."
> > >
> > > In recent years, the National Science Foundation has tried to shift its
> > > operations and ownership of NSFnet to Advanced Network and Services. And it
> > > will try to establish competition through contracts for networks to compete
> > > with NSFnet next year.
> > >
> > > But there is no level playing field, complained William L. Schrader,
> > > president of Performance Systems International Inc., a Reston, Va., company
> > > that provides commercial data connections to Internet. He made public two
> > > letters between officials of Advanced Network and Services and the National
> > > Science Foundation that he said gave the company unfair control over access
> > > to the network. The result, he added, was that the Government turned over
> > > valuable public property to a private company.
> > >
> > > "It's like taking a Federal park and giving it to K Mart," Mr. Schrader
> > > said. "It's not right, and it isn't going to stand."
> > >
> > > Performance Systems and several other companies have set up an alternative
> > > to NSFnet, known as a CIX. Mr. Schrader said his company and the venture of
> > > I.B.M. and MCI were competing for the same customers but unlike his rival
> > > he lacked a Federal subsidy. He said he might ask the Internal Revenue
> > > Service to look at the business relationship between Advanced Network's
> > > nonprofit and for-profit operations.
> > >
> > > *'Very Competitive Environment'*
> > >
> > > Allan Weis, the president of Advanced Network, disputed that his company
> > > had an unfair advantage. "It's a very competitive environment right now,"
> > > he said.
> > >
> > > At the National Science Foundation, Stephen Wolff, director of its
> > > networking division, said I.B.M. and MCI had overbuilt the network and were
> > > selling commercial service based on the excess capacity that was available.
> > >
> > > A number of organizations are working informally to settle the dispute.
> > >
> > > "I think it's a mess," said Mitchell D. Kapor, the founder of the Lotus
> > > Development Corporation and now head of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> > > a public-interest group focusing on public policy issues surrounding data
> > > networks. "Nobody should have an unfair advantage."
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > Vint Cerf
> > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd
> > McLean, VA 22102
> > 703-448-0965
> >
> > until further notice
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>
> living as The Truth is True
>
>
>
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list