[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Straw-man charter
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:02:39AM -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
>> NSP should imply additional Networking services beyond what an ISP
>> traditionally offers.
>> The reason for a split like this is NSP's tend to have LARGE FAST
>> backbones and LOTS of routers.
>> ISP's may have a single router with fairly low bandwidth. They may also
>> sell basically ONE service (dialup, wireless ...).
This generalization really doesn't seem hold, and at best
is a moving target (assets are acquired, divested, etc over
time). The Tier 1..n classification isn't clean either
(what exactly comprises a tier 1? Member of the skitter
>> I would be just as willing to call such providers SSP (small service
>> providers | simple service providers) but do not want to insult anyone
>> or any company.
>> I think the reason for a split like this would be because of the order
>> of magnitude difference in complexity when you have to manage 100's of
>> routers in lots of cities with 1000's of dynamic routes (NSP) vs 1 (or
>> 10) router(s) a single static default route to an NSP (SSP|ISP).
First, how is complexity measured (complexity is a term
that gets thrown around a lot and I'm just wondering what
you mean by it)? And is it really true that managing a
backbone with say, 1000s of routers is more "complex"
(for whatever definition) that managing a large broadband
installation that might have 100Ks of users?
>> George do we want/need a category for CSP Content service provider. Some
>> ISP's are moving away from providing ANY network connectivity. They
>> provide content and host mail/ personal web pages etc... but do NOT sell
>> the customer any network access. This model is becoming popular. They
>> would not be doing routing for the customers.
Also a good question: Does an ASP/CSP qualify as an ISP,
and if so, what is the definition of "ISP" (or even NSP)
that covers this? I'm not sure. Maybe transport provider
is a cleaner term for SPs providing L1-L3 service.
>> Finally I think ATM providers and other L1, L1, L3 network providers
>> could be covered by the NSP class but am not sure if the model will fit.