if the owner of MAE-EAST can drop me a note....
Louis A. Mamakos
louie at alter.net
Wed Sep 21 15:25:20 UTC 1994
> Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry"
> and "no settlements" agreements? Or - more to the point - have they agreed
> not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers
> they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure. I.e., is it
> permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make
> "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers?
MAE-East participants are not required to subscribe to "must carry" or
"no settlement" agreements. Participants peer with some set of other
participants with exclusively bi-lateral agreements.
As it turns out, at least in the case of AlterNet, we have *only* "no
settlements" type of peering arrangements. I don't know of any
"settlements" based agreement over MAE-East, but that's not to say
that they don't exist. I'm pretty certain that AlterNet wouldn't
enter into such an agreement.
I don't know how MAE-East participants/customers would make
arrangements with the DC NAP customers, since they're on a seperate,
unconnected level-2 infrastructure.
> If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of
> the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what.
NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some
sort. I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East. It
might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase"
available to help combat stupid legislative attempts. Again, that's
my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at
Louis A. Mamakos louie at alter.net
Backbone Architecture & Engineering Guy uunet!louie
AlterNet / UUNET Technologies, Inc.
3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023
Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001
More information about the NANOG