ANS to CIX Interconnection

mak mak
Wed Sep 30 20:05:55 UTC 1992

> From:    bjp at
> To:      mak at, regional-techs at

> Is there a reason why complete information is in the ENSS rather than the CNS
> My understanding of the agreement is that it is for the benefit of ANSnet
> and the CIX, so why should the regionals have to adjust the way they are set
> up?  I'm not just saying this to be contrary (Honest).  I am really
> interested in knowing why this method was chosen.  As others have pointed
> out it move the burden of enforcing policy restriction to individual
> AS pairs. Comments?

  You are correct that our interpretation of the AUP situation is that
the burden is on the regionals/midlevels to enforce the policies as
they apply to their institutions. This can be done by simply issuing
a public statement to all users that people should only use the
NSFNET for purposes of research and education. Or it can be done
a bit more drastically by filtering out routes. The actual
implementation of filters needs to be done in the regional's
peer router when default routing is used. 
  Does this help? 

> I am also interested in hearing what people pointing default at NSFnet
> plan to do?

  Some are not going to filter at all, some are going to implement
static routes to "black holes", and others have yet to talk to

> Brad Passwaters                                 (301)(982-3214)
> SURAnet Operations                              bjp at
> <My name, my opinions.>


More information about the NANOG mailing list