strawman for discussion in Ann Arbor

Mon Oct 4 01:34:47 UTC 1993

This is also a good idea, in the sense that if we keep the agenda
for the group to specific topics related to actual implementation
of the interconnection of networks, an open participation will
probably be the best way. So anyone from any country could participate.
	Mark

> From:    peter at goshawk.lanl.gov
> To:      roll at bsd.stupi.se (Peter Lothberg)
> CC:      regional-techs at merit.edu, boss at sunet.se

> 
> 
> I think the critical component for any successful forum is 
> whether or not the agenda is relevent to the people participating
> in the forum.  As such there are really few technical and 
> operational differences between GIX and NAP issues.  It is really 
> just an incidental difference in where you are operating in the global 
> Internet mesh.  Currently there is a single root (the mesh is 
> at this point is close to a tree and the GIX is very close to being 
> the root), but over time this will diffuse, and each party will 
> probably root a hierarchical routing tree out of the mesh by 
> logically pulling themselves up to the root.
> 
> In this sense the nature of regionally defined vrs globally defined
> boundaries in terms of GIX/NAP and IEPG/{RIPE, US-NOGIN, PAC-NOGIN,
> LATIN-NOGIN, etc.} are somewhat artificial.  They are still useful
> since they provide a mechanism for reasonable meeting sizes and scoping 
> of discussions, containment of costs for participating in meetings
> (e.g. travel), and allows for taking advantage of regional initiatives
> (U.S. NII, European CEC, etc.) and regional differences
> in terms of operational context.  
> 
> I would think it best if the boundaries between global
> and regional NOGINs are kept in an ad-hoc manner.
> 
> cheers,
> peter