From tomj Sun Mar 28 23:51:32 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00333; Sun, 28 Mar 93 23:51:23 -0800 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9303290751.AA00333@fido.wps.com> Subject: IP network service To: ittai@ans.net Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 23:51:23 -0800 (PST) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 851 Status: OR Could you please send me information on ANS' network services, specifically on long-distance carrier services for Internet protocol? FYI, I am the manager for The Little Garden, an internet cooperative in the Bay Area, with POPs in San Francisco, Palo Alto and Mtn. View. We have sites in Santa Cruz, Fremont and other areas we will be expanding into hopefully shortly. We have approx. 22 sites with 50 - 75 hosts online, arranged into 20 or so domains. Our members are medium and tiny businesses, and various small social/support groups. We do our own maintenance, name-service, buy and build our routers, etc. We are also researching new communications technologies, such as low-cost microwave, PC-hardware based routers, etc. Tom Jennings tomj@fido.wps.com -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From ittai@ans.net Mon Mar 29 08:32:56 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00489; Mon, 29 Mar 93 08:32:52 -0800 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA35450 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 11:32:15 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 11:32:15 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 11:32:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 11:30:41 EST From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: IP network service In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 28 Mar 1993 23:51:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, We met at Hackers this past fall. I did not realize you were now at the little garden... I am at IETF this week, so I'd like to wait until I return next week to follow up. Normally, I would pass your note to our local marketing rep, but it may be more effective for us to chat before doing that. -Ittai From tomj Mon Mar 29 12:58:47 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00580; Mon, 29 Mar 93 12:58:40 -0800 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9303292058.AA00580@fido.wps.com> Subject: Re: IP network service To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 12:58:39 -0800 (PST) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) In-Reply-To: from "Ittai Hershman" at Mar 29, 93 11:30:41 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 357 Status: OR Oh, yes! I thought your name was familiar... too many contexts!! Sure, I can wait. If you/they have some data-sheet of services, a standard blurb, that would be an OK start... we're looking for T1. I won't keep you. Let me know when you're comfortably ready to talk... -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From ittai@ans.net Mon Mar 29 20:06:15 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00825; Mon, 29 Mar 93 20:06:12 -0800 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA09177 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 23:05:47 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 23:05:47 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 29 Mar 1993 23:05:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 23:04:13 EST From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: IP network service In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 29 Mar 1993 12:58:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, Please send me your snail mail address and I'll have a packet sent to you. We can then discuss details next week... -Ittai From tomj Mon Mar 29 23:08:30 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00862; Mon, 29 Mar 93 23:08:23 -0800 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9303300708.AA00862@fido.wps.com> Subject: Re: IP network service To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 23:08:23 -0800 (PST) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) In-Reply-To: from "Ittai Hershman" at Mar 29, 93 11:04:13 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 292 Status: O > Please send me your snail mail address and I'll have a packet sent > to you. We can then discuss details next week... Here 'tis... Tom Jennings 55 Rondel Place San Francisco CA 94103 415-552-8156 -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From tomj Wed Apr 14 13:53:32 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA00976; Wed, 14 Apr 93 13:52:54 -0700 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9304142052.AA00976@fido.wps.com> Subject: IP services To: ittai@ans.net Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 13:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Cc: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush), gnu@cygnus.com (John Gilmore), tomj (Tom Jennings), pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2546 Status: OR Dear Ittai Hirschman -- Things have changed a bit since I last talked to you. We are going to band forces with a workalike network in Portland, operated by my friend Randy Bush and John Klensin. I know Randy from about 8 years back, when we were defining FidoNet's protocols, laying out testing suites, all that sort of thing. We've worked together in the years since then, and now I'm in this position of "sysoping" an Internet-peer network. The times they are a changin'... :-) So basically here's the story: We have two networks spanning Washington, Oregon and California; during the switchover to a new carrier we will consolidate into a single network by running a T1 between us, and taking our feed to the Internet from one end or the other. Our net, The Little Garden (TLG), has 22 members, each a subnetted stand-alone network. Two of our sites are medium-sized businesses; the others are social/political support groups, public BBS access to Internet resources, etc, as well as some small businesses. We have a T1 feed to our IP supplier. RAINnet, out of Portland OR, is the other network. They have approx. 25 sites. Their members are mainly research into very-low-cost IP networking. They have a 56K feed, and an immediate need to increase this. Both TLG and RAINnet have similar paradigms; we are explicitly not providing "services", we don't gaurentee 100% up time (though we are quite reliable). Both TLG and RAINnet exist to push the limit of networking down. (TLG currently charges $70/mo for 14,400 baud connection, plus $250 installation.) Both of us have reached the limits of our growth as concerns our current IP suppliers. Both of us have immediate plans to connect a number of additional network members. We want to be able to expand our networks as required, without restriction. So I guess what we need to talk about is pricing for a T1 to our combined networks, via TLG in Mountain View CA. Here are the "hard questions" that seem to bother IP carriers (aka ("service providers"). Hopefully we could work out solutions to any problems we might encounter. o Does your, or your upstream's, AUP prevent all the uses we plan? o Will you advertise all NSFNET approved networks to the NSFNET? o Will you limit the hosts, sites, networks, users we hook up? o Do you limit to and from whom we may pass on data? Sincerely, Tom Jennings PS: I received the datasheet package last week. -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From tomj Thu Apr 15 13:17:39 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA01482; Thu, 15 Apr 93 13:17:30 -0700 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9304152017.AA01482@fido.wps.com> Subject: Re: IP services To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 13:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) In-Reply-To: from "Ittai Hershman" at Apr 15, 93 00:36:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1580 Status: O > In thinking about this some more, my preferred plan of action would be > to draft a set of options, which I could distribute over e-mail, and > then we could get together on a conference call and start hashing out > the details. Yes, I think that would be good. My intent was to ask some "filtering" questions, both to get the facts as well as educate myself. > ANS CO+RE has no AUP restrictions other than some "good citizen" > language which I do not expect would cause you any problems. Could you forward these to me? (I imagine also there no problem; I assume it covers things like flooding, etc). > o Will you advertise all NSFNET approved networks to the NSFNET? > Yes. I asked this incorrectly: Will ANS advertise all our networks to the world? We're trying to determine connectivity options now. For example, if we have to go through some intermediate network connection to reach some otherwise isolated network (such as WestNet is isolated from CERFnets point of view) will ANS publish those routes? Will access in cases such as these cost extra? > o Do you limit to and from whom we may pass on data? > > No, as long as it does not break any federal, state or local law. We > do not block any traffic from our customers. [...] This sounds fine. Is this your standard agreement? And finally, what will this cost us, for a T1 feed to ANS, on a monthly/annual basis? What are startup costs? Can we supply part or all of the startup hardware (routers, etc)? -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From ittai@ans.net Wed Apr 14 21:38:27 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA01100; Wed, 14 Apr 93 21:38:21 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA08097 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 00:38:07 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 00:38:07 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 00:38:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 0:36:33 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Cc: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush), gnu@cygnus.com (John Gilmore), tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings), pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar) Subject: Re: IP services In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 14 Apr 1993 13:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Status: OR Both of us have reached the limits of our growth as concerns our current IP suppliers. Both of us have immediate plans to connect a number of additional network members. We want to be able to expand our networks as required, without restriction. So I guess what we need to talk about is pricing for a T1 to our combined networks, via TLG in Mountain View CA. Tom, We are very interested in working with you and any other current or potential Internet service provider. In fact, your timing is excellent because we have just been re-examining our gateway (i.e. wholesale) pricing to try to make it cheaper and more flexible for new low cost service providers to bootstrap. We have simultaneously been exploring some ideas with Pacific Bell, specifically in the Bay area, which I think will take off in the coming months. In thinking about this some more, my preferred plan of action would be to draft a set of options, which I could distribute over e-mail, and then we could get together on a conference call and start hashing out the details. Here are the "hard questions" that seem to bother IP carriers (aka ("service providers"). Hopefully we could work out solutions to any problems we might encounter. We are not phased in the least by your perfectly reasonable questions. Our answers are: o Does your, or your upstream's, AUP prevent all the uses we plan? ANS CO+RE has no AUP restrictions other than some "good citizen" language which I do not expect would cause you any problems. o Will you advertise all NSFNET approved networks to the NSFNET? Yes. o Will you limit the hosts, sites, networks, users we hook up? No. We view service providers who resell or add value and/or package ANSNet services to be good business for us and we have several customers doing this already. o Do you limit to and from whom we may pass on data? No, as long as it does not break any federal, state or local law. We do not block any traffic from our customers. Of course, there is no implied guarantee that other peer networks will accept all of our traffic. We do agree to disclose commercial network numbers to the networks we peer with and they have the right to block traffic if they need to. However this does not happen in practice. -Ittai From ittai@ans.net Thu Apr 15 17:40:35 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA01789; Thu, 15 Apr 93 17:40:29 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA17569 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:40:36 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:40:36 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:40:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 20:39:04 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: IP services In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 15 Apr 1993 13:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Status: OR > In thinking about this some more, my preferred plan of action would be > to draft a set of options, which I could distribute over e-mail, and > then we could get together on a conference call and start hashing out > the details. Yes, I think that would be good. My intent was to ask some "filtering" questions, both to get the facts as well as educate myself. Yup, understood. I too want to make sure that we are doing the right thing, which is why I am doing what we usually have our salespeople do. We are serious about selling to Internet service providers and, pardon the cliche, letting a thousand flowers bloom. > ANS CO+RE has no AUP restrictions other than some "good citizen" > language which I do not expect would cause you any problems. Could you forward these to me? (I imagine also there no problem; I assume it covers things like flooding, etc). The current language reads: Users of ANS network services shall not disrupt any of the ANS or other associated networks as a whole or any equipment or system forming part of their systems, or any services provided over, or in connection with, any of the ANS or other associated networks. ANS networks shall not be used to transmit any communication where the meaning of the message, or its transmission or distribution, would violate any applicable law or regulation or would likely be highly offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof. Mass distribution of any message, including advertising, may not be "broadcast" or otherwise sent on an intrusive basis to any user of the ANS network or any directly or indirectly attached network. However, when requested by a user of the networks, product information and other commercial messages are permitted to be transmitted over the network. Discussion of a product's relative advantages and disadvantages by users of the product, and vendors' responses to those who pose questions about their products, may be made available over the ANS CO+RE networks. > o Will you advertise all NSFNET approved networks to the NSFNET? > Yes. I asked this incorrectly: Will ANS advertise all our networks to the world? We're trying to determine connectivity options now. For example, if we have to go through some intermediate network connection to reach some otherwise isolated network (such as WestNet is isolated from CERFnets point of view) will ANS publish those routes? Will access in cases such as these cost extra? We will advertise all your networks to the world as part of our standard ANS CO+RE Gateway service. > o Do you limit to and from whom we may pass on data? > > No, as long as it does not break any federal, state or local law. We > do not block any traffic from our customers. [...] This sounds fine. Is this your standard agreement? Yup. And finally, what will this cost us, for a T1 feed to ANS, on a monthly/annual basis? What are startup costs? Can we supply part or all of the startup hardware (routers, etc)? I will save this for the detailed set of options I am working on. I hope to get this done over the weekend. If getting those options to you sooner is critical, let me know. -Ittai From ittai@ans.net Mon Apr 19 12:36:50 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA02052; Mon, 19 Apr 93 12:36:45 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA17874 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:36:31 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:36:31 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:36:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 15:34:59 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: IP services In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, The proposal is in its final stages. I'll e-mail it to you later today. -Ittai From randy@psg.com Mon Apr 19 16:18:20 1993 Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA02269; Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:18:11 -0700 Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0nl56x-000305C; Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:18 PDT Message-Id: From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: ANS Gateway Proposal (fwd) To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 16:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Cc: gnu@cygnus.com, pozar@kumr.lns.com, rgnet@psg.com In-Reply-To: <9304192311.AA02243@fido.wps.com> from "Tom Jennings" at Apr 19, 93 04:11:46 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 700 Status: OR > We have simultaneously been exploring some ideas with Pacific Bell I smell the big rat. > o One stop shopping: At ridiculous prices. > Attachment Speed T1 10Mbps > ---------------- --- ------ > less than 10% utilization $36K $150K > less that 20% utilization $45K $185K > less than 30% utilization $55K $200K > up to 100% utilization $70K $250K Maybe he should take a look at AlterNet's pricing. He wants 70k for what Rick charges 24k. Ahhh. But he's paying telco? Well. say that's another 10-20k/yr. > 4. The gateway charge is exclusive of circuits and related charges. Well, so much for that excuse. > The specific goals of SNAP-W are: Whew! From randy@psg.com Mon Apr 19 16:22:26 1993 Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA02295; Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:22:22 -0700 Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0nl5B8-000305C; Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:23 PDT Message-Id: From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: I'm X-ing hard.... To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 16:23:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9304192318.AA02275@fido.wps.com> from "Tom Jennings" at Apr 19, 93 04:18:48 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 20 Status: OR Ciscos can do Frame. From ittai@ans.net Mon Apr 19 16:05:48 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA02219; Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:05:41 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA15353 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 19:05:33 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 19:05:33 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 19:05:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 19:02:30 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: ANS Gateway Proposal Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, As promised, here is a more detailed proposal for you folks to evaluate. In summary, we are very interested in working with The Little Garden and RAINnet to provide commercial Internet gateway connectivity. Your timing is excellent in that we were just revising our gateway pricing to try to make it cheaper and more flexible for new low cost service providers to bootstrap. We have simultaneously been exploring some ideas with Pacific Bell, specifically in the Bay area, which will take off in the coming months and may provide an alternate approach. Both approaches are documented in the remainder of the message. ANS CO+RE Gateway Services -------------------------- o Commercial (AUP Free) Internet Connectivity o Unlimited Backdoors o High-Bandwidth and Low Latency National T3 Backbone Network o ANS provided and maintained CPE equipment (ENSS Router, ACSU, modem for out-of-band troubleshooting) o One stop shopping: - ANS procures, installs, tests, and maintains circuit - ANS procures, installs, and maintains CSU/DSU and router - ANS acts as agent for IP and DNS registration (if needed) o 7x24 NOC monitoring and end-to-end management o Automated Weekly Link Bandwidth Usage Reports o Unbundled Services (e.g. Primary and/or Secondary DNS for gateway's customers, ANSRemote national 1-800 dialup services, InterLock(sm) security services, Training and Consulting) ANS CO+RE Gateway Pricing ------------------------- The following pricing has not yet been fully finalized. We are very interested in your feedback. This is not a quotation, but I think it is fair to say that the final terms and pricing will be at least as favorable as these: Attachment Speed T1 10Mbps ---------------- --- ------ less than 10% utilization $36K $150K less that 20% utilization $45K $185K less than 30% utilization $55K $200K up to 100% utilization $70K $250K Notes: ------ 1. A second T1 attachment for backup (but not additional capacity) is available for an additional $20K regardless of utilization band. 2. If you need to upgrade to multiple T1 interfaces, on the existing CPE router, your initial T1 will automatically be priced at the "up to 100% utilization" level and the subsequent T1(s) will be priced at an additional $20K each. You have unlimited use of all T1s at that point. 3. Utilization is measured by polling SNMP counters on the CPE router and averaging 9am-9pm EST/EDT, Monday-Friday. The utilization measurement will be calculated on a quarterly basis and will be used to establish the price for the following quarter. 4. The gateway charge is exclusive of circuits and related charges. Assuming the TLG location in Mountain View, each T1 interconnect with the ANS Point Of Presence in the Hayward, CA. MCI POP would cost $13,433 a year plus a one-time installation charge of $1,780. We further assume that TLG and RAINet will establish a private leased line interconnection, which ANS would not manage, to interconnect the RAINet site in Portland, OR. SNAP-West --------- The following information is not yet public nor universally committed. While I will not ask you to sign a non-disclosure, I do ask that you do not discuss this information with any other parties without our express permission. ANS and PacBell are to working together to establish a network access point "(NAP)" in Northern California. This NAP will be called the SMDS Network Access Point - West "(SNAP-W)". This NAP will provide a neutral traffic exchange point for Internet service providers. The specific goals of SNAP-W are: o Establish a Northern California distributed NAP based upon SMDS technology to experiment with IP/OSI over tariffed SMDS switching technology at DS3 and DS1 speeds. o Interconnect multiple network service providers "(NSPs)" over the SNAP-W SMDS switching fabric. o Allow NSPs to establish commercial bilateral arrangements for traffic exchange. o Provide NSFNET backbone services over SNAP-W to NSPs (approved by NSF) as an experiment of the NAP concept as described in the NREN program plan. We expect to bring SNAP-West up in late May or early June. By joining SNAP-West, you would be eligible to transit NSFNET AUP-compliant traffic at no cost (pending pro-forma NSF approval). Routing commercial traffic would still require a bilateral agreement with a commercial NSP willing to provide gateway services (ANS CO+RE will do this for a fee, just as we currently do). NSPs provide all their own equipment and pay only for an SMDS interconnect to the Bay area Pacific Bell SMDS cloud. -Ittai From ittai@ans.net Fri Apr 30 11:57:59 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA05054; Fri, 30 Apr 93 11:57:55 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA25702 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:57:01 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:57:01 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:57:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 14:55:27 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: ENHANCING COLLABORATION:FULFILLING NREN In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 30 Apr 1993 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, Any comments on the proposal I sent you? I haven't heard a peep... -Ittai From tomj Fri Apr 30 21:32:22 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA01258; Fri, 30 Apr 93 21:32:13 -0700 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9305010432.AA01258@fido.wps.com> Subject: ANS' offer to Rainy Garden net (RGnet) To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 21:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) In-Reply-To: from "Ittai Hershman" at Apr 30, 93 02:55:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1530 Status: O > Any comments on the proposal I sent you? I haven't heard a peep... Sorry for not getting back to you. Well, simply put, the prices you quoted me seem extremely high. CERFnet will provide basically the same thing for $2350/month, including T1 line to their router, as an "IP Reseller". Unless I've missed something, ANS wants $4583 -- $5833/month for basically the same thing, not including leased line cost. If this is not the case, or I have overlooked something really important, we'll reconsider ANS' offer. Tom Jennings PS: Maybe there is another thing you can provide a quotation on? Assuming we were a full-fledged CIX member, with our own electrical connection to the Router at CIX-West, what would ANS want to provide our network with access to the NSFnet and beyond? All packets to our network would come to us via the CIX-West router, and all of our outbound traffic to CIX-connected sites would also flow through the CIX-West router; all we would want from ANS is a path to the NSFnet, and possibly non-US sites. We estimate these to be about 10% of our total traffic. Probably it would require a separate electrical connection (T1 or fractional) to an ANS site, otherwise the routing necessary to accomplish this through the CIX router would be prohibitive. We would of course supply and miantain the electrical link. If you could enlighten me about possibily arranging such a thing with ANS, I'd love to hear about it. -- Tom Jennings / tomj@fido.wps.com / World Power Systems / San Francisco CA From ittai@ans.net Sat May 1 08:49:28 1993 Received: from interlock.ans.net by fido.wps.com (5.67/1.34) id AA02214; Sat, 1 May 93 08:49:24 -0700 Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA21588 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for tomj@fido.wps.com); Sat, 1 May 1993 11:48:28 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Sat, 1 May 1993 11:48:28 -0400 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Sat, 1 May 1993 11:48:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 1 May 93 11:46:54 EDT From: Ittai Hershman To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Subject: Re: ANS' offer to Rainy Garden net (RGnet) In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 30 Apr 1993 21:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Status: OR Tom, Could you provide me with more details on the CERFnet option. If we are not price competitive, we need to fix this and I will fight with our finance guys to do so. Your business is important to us, and as I said initially we want to make this offering accessible to emerging service providers. We cannot succeed if we are not price competitive. I presume the CERFnet "local loop" quoted is an SMDS connection, rather than a leased line. We can do this as well, and that will help bring the price down. I will also investigate your question about pricing a peering arrangement at or near the CIX. -Ittai