########## ########## ########## | ########## ########## ########## | #### #### #### | ######## ######## ######## | THE FUTURE OF NSFNET ######## ######## ######## | #### #### #### | ########## #### #### | ########## #### #### | ===================================================================== EFFector Online August 19, 1992 Issue 3.2 A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 ===================================================================== GETTING A HANDLE ON THE FUTURE OF NSFNET by Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org) A Report on the July 23 Meeting of the Communications Policy Forum in Washington, D.C. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for the NSFNet. Originally a network created to link a handful of supercomputing centers serving the U.S. research and education community, NSFNet became the backbone of the Internet in this country, now serving millions of people and thousands of organizations. Since 1987, the NSF has contracted with a partnership of Merit Network, Inc., IBM and MCI to provide and manage these "backbone network services. That contract will expire in November of this year. In order to award a contract for the next phase of the NSFNet's growth and management, NSF staff is preparing a solicitation that will describe the network that the NSF wants and invite interested organizations to bid to become the provider of those services. However, before releasing the final solicitation that will be bid on, the NSF released a draft and asked for public comment on it. Comments were to be filed by August 3rd of this year. In response to this, EFF, which administers the Communications Policy Forum in Washington, DC convened a roundtable on July 23 to bring together a wide cross-section of groups that would either be bidding on the new contract or would be affected by its outcome. Also attending the meeting were members of the NSF staff. The meeting itself, in order to stimulate an open exchange of views, was "off-the-record" in that while notes on the sense of the speakers were maintained, no speaker was directly quoted. The Proposed New Shape of NSFNet The Draft Solicitation describes a new architecture for the NSFNet. It specifies certain requirements for those who are interested in providing these services. Until now, the "backbone network services" that lie at the heart of the NSFNet worked as a single package. This package was a trunk for connecting regional or "mid-level" networks across the country. It was provided by an organization that also controlled access to the backbone and directed traffic on it. In recent years, this arrangement created a sense of unfairness among competitors in the independent commercial sector who are eager to provide network services and Internet connections. In order to address these and other concerns, the Draft Solicitation proposes that the next generation will split this package into two distinct units. The first unit would be a "very high speed backbone" or "vBNS". The second unit would provide a number of "network access points" or "NAPs." The entity responsible for providing the NAPs will also be the Routing Authority that oversees network traffic. The draft also specifies some requirements for the new architecture. First the vBNS must operate at 155 mbps or higher. Second, it must connect to all NAPs. Third, it must provide high speed interregional connectivity. Fourth it must be restricted to research and education traffic only. Fifth, the NAPs must operate at speeds of at least 100 mbps, may connect any number of networks to each other or the vBNS, and are open to any kind of traffic. Finally, the vBNS provider and the NAP manager must be two different entities. Reactions at the CPF Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion at the July 23rd CPF meeting. First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding about some of the draft's key elements. Among items mentioned were such basic questions as what is a NAP, what is the vBNS, how will they relate, are there ways of connecting to the vBNS without going through a NAP, how many NAPs will there be and where will they be located, what will it cost to connect to a NAP and how will charges be set? Second, it became clear that there were many important issues about which the NSF remained "intentionally silent." Most obviously, the draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids will be evaluated. In addition, the draft is silent about how this generation of the NSFNet intersects with the development of the NREN. It does not suggest how prices for NAP attachment will be set, and when. The draft fails to address the procedure for starting a non-NSF sponsored NAP and connecting to the vBNS. The draft also fails to illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no longer "experimental" and can be provided commercially without further government funding. Additional issues came from the various constituencies around the table who brought with them very different concerns. For example, the research and education community appreciated that the draft seemed to make it easier to access commercial services through the Internet, yet expressed concern that the new architecture would disrupt the regional arrangements that allow costs to be shared. These cost sharing arrangements, they argue, foster more widespread connectivity, and disrupting them could reduce rather than increase the number of networked institutions. Commercial network service providers expressed a range of opinions. Some supported the basic architecture, although suggested certain modifications, such as that the Routing Authority be separate from the entity that manages the NAPs. Others argued that the draft continues to unfairly distort the marketplace for network services by subsidizing standard connections such as e-mail. Local telephone companies, who have not previously been involved in the development of the NSFNet, pointed out that the NSF was proposing a new commercial network without taking into account the infrastructure and regulatory boundaries of the nation's local exchange telephone companies. Since the breakup of the Bell System, for example, the Baby Bells cannot transport traffic across certain regional boundaries. If the NSF's architecture does not put a NAP in every one of these regions, then these network providers are automatically excluded from full participation. Following the meeting, the EFF staff prepared a summary of the major issues that arose during the course of the discussion and circulated it to all those in attendance. The EFF also submitted it to the NSF as a record of important concerns that the EFF believes should be considered in preparing the final solicitation. In addition, the EFF asked the NSF to resubmit a draft solicitation for public comment before issuing a final version. * * * * * Want more information? For more information about the NSFNet draft solicitation and bidding process, contact our Washington office at eff.org. DC staff members Danny Weitzner(djw@eff.org) and Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org), as well as Jerry Berman (jberman@eff.org), the Director of the Washington office, have all been working on this issue. About the Communications Policy Forum The Communications Policy Forum, a project administered by the EFF, provides consumer and public interest groups, telecommunications companies, computer industry groups and policy makers a common forum in which to discuss telecommunications issues and exchange views in a non-partisan setting. The CPF also undertakes non-partisan research. It is co-sponsored with the Consumer Federation of America and the ACLU. -==--==--==-<-==--==--==- MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter, EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member. Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish. Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason. ---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM --------------- Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second St. #32 Cambridge, MA 02141 I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________ $20.00 (student or low income membership) $40.00 (regular membership) $100.00(Corporate or company membership. This allows any organization to become a member of EFF. It allows such an organization, if it wishes to designate up to five individuals within the organization as members.) | I enclose an additional donation of $___________ Name:______________________________________________________ Organization:______________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City or Town: _____________________________________________ State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional) FAX:( )____________________(optional) Email address: ______________________________ I enclose a check [ ] . Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________ to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Number:____________________________________________________ Expiration date: ____________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:______________________ I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems appropriate [ ] . Initials:___________________________ Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible. ===================================================================== EFFector Online is published by The Electronic Frontier Foundation 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866 Internet Address: eff@eff.org Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. ===================================================================== This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons. Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253