Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!UCCVMA!OPSRJH
From: OPSRJH@UCCVMA.BITNET (Richard Hintz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal
Message-ID: <900207.085040.PST.OPSRJH@UCCVMA>
Date: 7 Feb 90 16:50:40 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 25
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Wed, 7 Feb 90 10:33:14 EST from <LONG@YALEVM>

On Wed, 7 Feb 90 10:33:14 EST Philip Long said:
(things omitted)
>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


Two points about Mr Long's note.  First, this is the first that
I've heard that NREN planners are consciously expecting that
NREN will become a commercial network.  I'm not disputing this,
it's just that it's a surprise.

Second, I'm concerned at what I perceive to be the start of
factionalism between CREN management and NREN management.  This
is a bit of a surprise, too, although perhaps it shouldn't be.

Am I seeing problems where there aren't any or can we expect to
see NREN vs. CREN wars in the future?
  Rich Hintz
  University of California