RE: Straw-man charter

["Budd, Fred" <Fred.Budd@wiltel.com>]

For the NSP/ISP/Enterprise/et al definition:
I'd define the different types of service providers by the degree the offered network services are open/closed from a connectivity perspective; so NSPs = those offering closed (private network) services, ISPs = open (Internet).  VPN services (L2, L3, ATM) present different functional requirements, assumptions, threats, and management implications than ye olde dedicated Internet connectivity.  The trick is to make sure the operational profiles aren't overly duplicative in content for those SPs offering hybrid services on one converged network.  

The style of management (OOB routed network, dial, smart hands on site) would be better left to being defined in profiles if at all possible.  That would leave things more modular in definition.       

Other comments to follow later.

-Fred B
      

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-opsec@psg.com [mailto:owner-opsec@psg.com]On Behalf Of David
Meyer
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:36 AM
To: Smith, Donald
Cc: gmj@pobox.com; Ross Callon; opsec@ops.ietf.org
Subject: 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
	core? Other?).

>> 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.

	Transport provider?

	Dave