To: aladin who wrote (76 ) 11/15/1998 10:33:00 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 626
It's easy to see why some confusion exists on this topic. See what I just uncovered in a June 1998 article in Telephony Magzine. What do you make of the author's claims re the future of I2? IMO, the subject of I2 often gets confused with that of IPng, or the next generation of the Internet Protocol, aka IPv6 =========from telephony magazine: Yet John Patrick, the project chairman, and Dan Schulman, president of AT&T WorldNet Service, speak urgently about the group's aim being simple rather than starry-eyed. It wants to address critical issues that may hinder the Internet's growth before a crisis arises. The group also realizes that businesses will always have proprietary interests, but that doesn't have to stymie open interfaces and interconnection. Patrick, vice president of Internet technology at IBM, believes some of today's access bottlenecks will be resolved with Internet2, a separate Internet infrastructure designed to connect research and educational institutions. Internet2 will feature gigapops, which he believes could eliminate peering agreements. Internet2 also promises to differentiate packets to unheard-of quality-of-service levels--to the point where a packet that's part of an e-mail message can be picked apart from a packet that's part of a voice conversation, for example. That level of sophistication is a glimmer in Sprint's eye. Largely overlooked in its announcement of a new asynchronous transfer mode-based network, the Integrated On-Demand Network, is a proposal to enable businesses to bill their customers by the megacell, or data bit. The plan could change the billing paradigm from minute-based to individual ATM cell-based.