Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!YALEVM!LONG
From: LONG@YALEVM.BITNET (Philip Long)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: BITNET Restructuring Proposal
Message-ID: <POLICY-L%90020710344215@MARIST.BITNET>
Date: 7 Feb 90 15:33:14 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 44
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway

REPLY TO 02/07/90 09:46 FROM ACC00RRB@UNCCVM.BITNET "Robert R. Blackmun": Re:
BITNET Restructuring Proposal

Bob, you raise excellent questions.  While there are no certain answers, the
CREN Board has wrestled with these questions and is currently exploring the
following basic idea:

1.  Folks who have high-speed IP links (regionals or whatever) do not want to
spend a fair amount of money maintaining a low-speed RSCS link.  As you know,
we have resisted dropping this link requirement for sometime for the very
reasons you raise, however, while NSFNET and regional access is here now and
not charging for traffic, members rightly complain about having to pay
significant dollars for what amounts to insurance.

Of course, giving up the private lines could give up some of CREN's
independence on usage policy - more on this later.

At the last meeting (1/21-22) the Board modified the membership rules to allow
substitution of equivalent (and free to CREN traffic) bandwidth for the former
dedicated 9600 baud RSCS line.

2.  Recognizing the various risks sharing bandwidth on a government network
(which is consciously planned to become a commercial network), CREN must plan
to provide alternate bandwidth if and when it may be required:

The technical committee is actively studying what it would cost to create a
private backbone and what lead time would be required.  CREN does have a modest
financial reserve, and recreating a private backbone in the case of an
emergency would be one of the appropriate uses of this reserve in my view.  Of
course, if such an emergency arose, many schools who find the need to drop
their private lines today would have to again pick up the costs of a private
line again, but would probably be happy to have the opportunity to do so under
the circumstances.  (At such a future time, probably at least 56Kb, but because
ordered and centrally, probably at the average cost of most 9600 baud lines
today.)

The strategy then is to use the bandwidth legimately available to us as a
designated NSF midlevel network to avoid current costs, but to have a funded
and viable plan to recreate a private back bone if and when it might be needed.

As stated, this option is currently under investigation, it has not been
adopted by the Board.  I favor the strategy.

- Philip Long, member CREN Board of Trustees