ANS Connectivity Agreement

bjp at bjp at
Tue Jan 7 22:07:03 UTC 1992

<Al Hoover says:>
>I am responding to your note to Al Weis regarding the exchange of commercial
>traffic between ANS and NEARnet.  The short answer to your question is no,
>ANS will not accept commercial (CO) traffic generated by an attached network
>under the Connectivity Agreement.  There is a Gateway agreement that can be
>signed whereby ANS and the attached network exchange CO traffic.
>The thread of your question implies that the infrastructure of NEARnet and that
>of ANSnet are symmetrical.  Providing national backbone services as well as
>direct attachments and gateways positions ANSnet within a different economic
>and operational structure.  The scale of our operational and other commitments
>does not allow ANSnet to provide transit services in exchange for the delivery
>of CO traffic being accepted by NEARnet.

The implication here is that ALL of ANS operations and backbone should 
be included in this evaluation.  I believe this to be incorrect, the only part
of the ANS backbone that is of use to me (in the sense that I want to
do commericial traffic) is the commercial part. (IE connections to
ANS commmercial customers and to other regionals that permit commercial
traffic via ANS.  So what matters is commericial connectivity NOT
size.  If another group can connect me to as much of the commericial
world or connect to a reasonable amount at a smaller cost than whats
the point in signing the ANS aggreement.  In the real world I doubt
people will care how much you can get to  - they will care if you can get
to what they want... OF course getting to more of the commericial world
means the odds are in your favor when they ask if you can get to

>The regional does get something in return for accepting the ANS CO traffic in
>the form of added value to the regional's members who presumably may want
>access to and benefit from the CO services available.  This added value means
>more members and more revenue.

The agreement as it now stands seems to say that the regionals have more
to gain by signing the agreement then ANS does, a number of people seem to
be disputing this claim.  As I stated before if enough people feel this
way and don't sign, ANS will be hurt.  More then the agreements themselves
people worry about the motivations behind the agreements, claiming
special priviliges (most equal among equals) may one the things that
worries people. For if ANS claim those priviliges now what other priviliges
might they claim in the future.

Note: I really have no idea what ANS motivations/intentions are, however
I can say that I have read/seen things that have made me uneasy.

Brad Passwaters                                 (301)(982-3214)
SURAnet Operations                              bjp at
include <std.diclaimer.h> 	:-)

More information about the NANOG mailing list