There seems to be a confusion between private leaf networks (which nobody
generally cares about) and the major backbone (as I-2 advocates portray it).
Nobody cares about AUPs in leaf networks. AUPs in transit backbones
are evil. Or everybody already forgot NSFNET AUP and the tons of
related hackery in routing policies all around the world?
The interesting thing to me below is the assumption that there is
an inherent difference between a transit backbone and a private
leaf network. Other than the likely lack of separate ASes within
a leaf network, the difference is the policy of the network, in
addition to the topoligical contiguity to other folks. Certainly
this is significant. Yes I _know_ one could say that a backbone doesn't
have any real destinations on it, but the distinction is rather
vague. Clearly with loose source routing, one could make most
any (properly unfiltered) leaf node network a transit network, if
there were some motivation for doing this (but there wouldn't be,
I believe Manning makes a good point that an AUP is inherent to a
We have seen an increase in the discussions of AUP with respect to
backbones (MCI/SL/UU). The discussions regarding dumping defaults
and forced routing to destinations not advertised all centered
Actually, that Clinton's network "initiative" is entirely in line with
their other efforts to curb the free flow of information -- particularly
at the place where there is a contingent of young people who would be
affected most by the information. It is no secret that political views
ofmost people who have spent some time with Internet tend to shift to
more libertaran, as they get taste for free communication not generally
afforded by the "democratic" system. Hence the effective opposition to
the encryption policy and CDA. Sure as hell, after such embarrasment
the administation does not like intelligentsia to have a voice.
While the case is there, it is not that strong. I think Sagan calls it a
Don't fool yourself. The I-2 is not the "faster Internet". It is
a tool to force those pesky free-thinkers to shut up.
Maybe. More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education
institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).
I don't blindly accept the altruistic guise under which it was presented,
but I do think there are sig. other reasons beyond government
(On the other hand, Vadim does have more history on this than I