An entity that provides IP service to a customer base, either
in a closed environment (no external world view) or open, world
connected Internet service. At a minimum this would entail a
bilateral aggreement with another provider to exchange routing
information between the two.
Seems that the above is a sufficient definition.
It's either too much or not enough:
- "An entity that provides IP service to a customer base"
in itself sufficiently defines an internet (lowercase!)
- Even though a particular customer of a certain internet
service provider may have access to most of the Internet
(uppercase!), certain parts of the Internet may well be
blocked to him due to AUP constraints.
- Exchanging of routing information is pretty useless if
it isn't accompanied by exchanging of traffic. In fact
it's *only* the latter that determines whether a certain
internet service provider is an Internet service provider.
- One of the parties in the last sentence must have Internet
connectivity, otherwise we're still speaking of internet
service providers only.
So I would propose the following wording:
An entity that provides IP-based services to a customer base,
in a closed group of networks or - as far as possible within
Acceptable Use Policy constraints - to the Internet at large.
At a minimum the latter would entail a bilateral agreement
with at least one Internet-connected service provider to
exchange traffic and routing information between the two.
From dsj Tue Oct 5 17:48:22 1993
Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0)
id AA19146; Tue, 5 Oct 93 17:48:22 -0400