Tim: Please don't misunderstand my intent here: I don't have a problem with the NREN networks, or with the top-quality treatment afforded them in the matter of address allocations. These networks clearly deserve, and should have, the best available quality of service in matters related to address allocations.
Additionally, the views expressed in my note don't originate with me; rather, my note contained a precis of the views expressed to me (sometimes in language of markedly purple and blue character) by some of my clients. The objections cited are not to the treatment afforded to the NREN networks, but to the decidedly discriminatory treatment afforded to end-user commercial (as distinguished from service-provider) networks. I offer my profound and abject apologies to the NREN networks; I deeply regret any imputation of dog-in-the-manger attitude which might have arisen from any reading of my statement; such was certainly not my intent. Thank you for raising this matter, and for offering an opportunity to correct any mistaken impression which might have arisen from my note. Regards, AEB On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:59:21PM -0500, Alan E. Beard wrote: > > > > > I agree that NREN networks differ from other networks, but it does not > > follow that other networks should thereby be forced to discriminatory > > treatment while NREN networks obtain top-quality service. (BTW, Brown v. > > Board is a 1950s US Supreme Court ruling which held that, in the provision > > of services - in this case, public education - separate facilities or > > service models for different groups are inherently unequal. Furthermore, > > the Court held that, in this context, unequal == discriminatory. This is > > considered a landmark ruling in the area of civil rights law.) > > Alan, > > I note a second reference to this... > > You seem to have an "issue" with publicly funded research/education > networks, which I don't quite understand. There are advantages and > disadvantages with being attached to an NREN. There are quite strict > AUPs that (should) prevent such networks being used for commercial > purposes (which would be unfair competition with commercial providers). > > My original point was that there is a large (but very much minority) user > and system base in the educational networks, where aggregation and (site > or enterprise) multihoming is very rare (one of the disadvantages :) > Perhaps universities in the future will be more keen to be multi-homed, > but enterprise level multihoming is rare in this context. > > Universities are not forced to use NREN infrastructure, although it would > not generally make financial or technical sense to go elsewhere. > > Tim > -- Alan E. Beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AEBeard Consulting; 4109 Chelsa Ln; Lakeland FL 33809 863.815.2529 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
