Comments

Peter S. Ford peter at goshawk.lanl.gov
Sun Sep 11 21:50:33 UTC 1994


>>> 
>>> Peter Ford writes that a network service provider could show that they 
>>> are partially meeting their NAP responsibilities by connecting to MAE 
>>> East and presumably treating MAE east as the Washington DC NAP.  

Gordon, 

The exact quote is:

	"Thus, an ISP who wanted to check off that they
	were meeting the NAP functionality that NSF was 
	requesting could do so by saying they were
	doing so in part by being connected to MAE-east."

Please note the "in part ..." 

>>> I don't 
>>> understand why this is an accurate statement.  For the service frovides 
>>> are responsible for connecting to the  new Jersey, california, and 
>>> chicago NAPs.....NOT to washington which is NOT a priority NAP.
>>> 
>>> Peter then adds:
>>> Now that there is a facility for ISP interconnection at DS-3 rates, it
>>> seems prudent for NSF to consider MAE-east inter-connectivity as
>>> meeting NAP requirements. 
>>> 
>>> Wow!  Is that an interesting statement!  With much fanfare NSF has 
>>> announced that Sprint, MFS Ameritech and PAC Bell will build NAPs 
>>> which would be fully operation on October 31.  

Gordon,  I am sure you have written more about the NSF NAP awards  than
NSF has. :-)

>>> What about these FOUR 
>>> facilities that have nothing to do with MAE East??  Why not use them, 
>>> Peter?  *UNLESS* they are unusable before the second half of next year??  
>>> Is THAT the problem?  From reading Milo's posts to Dave Sincoskie and the 
>>> Nap-info list it sure looks like this could well be the problem.

Gordon, I (speaking for myself) am saying that there is no reason
for there to be a separation in the facitilies used for interconnection 
and that it is simple/trivial to make them the same in the case of DC and 
California.  The net effect on the California and DC NAP awardees appears
to be minimal and the ISPs that are to connect to the NAPs save themselves
interconnection costs.  This in turn should reduce the cost to the people
to whom NSF awards funds for Internet connectivity.
Do you find fault with this line of reasoning?  It may be  easier to 
believe in a conspiracy, but you might also want to look for economic
drivers.

>>> So the NSF to save face wants to call MAE-East an NSF NAP?  

Gordon,  The NSF panel recommended the award of a DC based NAP 
to MFS with the belief that they would co-evolve to being the 
same thing.   I can make no claim of original thought for the 
implementation of a NAP being the same thing that other NSPs use 
for interconnection.

>>> And Steve 
>>> wolff is making statements that the feds shouldn't build facilities that 
>>> private industry can do better!?
>>> 

Gordon, another misquote. Is there any way we can get you to use a
mail system that would allow you to cut and paste?

peter





More information about the NANOG mailing list