links on the blink (fwd)

Tim Bass bass at
Sat Nov 4 19:40:36 UTC 1995

I second hwb's observation that ISPs must take more responsibility
for the overall QOS of the Internet infrastructure.  IMHO, building
business profits from providing IP services and not funding the
development of routing protocols that provide Policy Based Routing
and QOS hooks does not make good long term business.

If end users, for example, could choose how their datagrams travel
based on reliability and routing policy, then end-users would benefit
greatly by enhancced IP services and all providers would benefit.

The current,  post NSF funding, days appears to resemble this paradigm:
IP service providers take advantage of work by the NSF, IETF and code
developers to create a commercial business.  IP service providers
(not all, of course, but most) make good profits and do not help fund 
(again not all, but most) the development of enhanced features in the
IP development saga. 

Just sending packets "up stream" and then telling the end-user 
they do have any responsibility  with "up stream networks"  does
nothing to improve the reliability of the Internet nor does it 
enhance the product offering.

NANOG would appear to be an excellent vehicle for developing a strategic
plan, as well as a funding strategy, to improve, enhance, and forward
the development of these services.  The IEFT is, for the most part,
a volunteer organization.  Where does all that CIX money go, BTW?



| Tim Bass                           | #include<campfire.h>                | 
| Principal Network Systems Engineer |       for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){  |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd.          |           take_one_down();          |
|                                    |           pass_it_around();         |
|           |       }                             |
|                                    |  back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | 

More information about the NANOG mailing list