Re: Internet: Getting more money ...??

[Curtis Villamizar]

In message <199610141906.PAA23721@panix.com>, Dana Hudes writes:
>  
> Point may have been obscured. You add more facts (thanks!) the
> question is what the $10 million represented -- did it include the
> money IBM spent but did not charge the NSF?

It represented what NSF spent.  I think AT&T bid $22M/year in 1987 for
a T1 network, though I didn't read that anywhere.  The OIG report
describes the non-competitive nature of some of the alternate
requests.

> As for the NSS's being still in place but disconnected, I thought the
> lease was up a year ago.  The NSS's certainly are not cost
> effective. One of the problems that they faced in the versions
> subsequent to those you had at ANS was running out of backplane
> bandwidth for WAN-LAN (and LAN-LAN) transfers. Another of course was
> their proprietary nature.  The price tag doesn't surprise me, Rs/6ks
> are expensive.  But the sampling feature would be helpful in the SYN
> attack situation.

The NSFNET was over in May 1995.  IBM and ANS contracted for ANS to
pay IBM to support the routers for another year to allow time to find
a replacement and get them deployed.  Things ran way behind schedule
so after June the NSS were no longer supported but still in use for
about 2 months.

> Dana

Curtis
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -