Stephen Wolff steve at
Wed Sep 7 19:34:33 UTC 1994

> Sorry, I can't let you get away with that statement! You can shape
> peering policy WITHOUT specifying the location of the interconnect.

No apology needed :-)
> The customer wants connectivity, not NAPs! Why doesn't NSF specify
> connectivity rather than means? Does NFS want to ensure IT controls
> the Internet by controling some of the major interconnect?

We did a lot of community consulting before settling on the current
architecture.  It was clear the FTS2000-like solution of another NSFNET
Backbone with two or more suppliers was felt to be *too* structured, and
the solution of "give the money to the end-user and get out of the way" 
was too loose for comfort.  The NAP/RA/RNP solution had FIX/CIX/MAE-East 
precedent and, it seemed, just enough structure.

NSF hasn't the slightest desire to "control the Internet."  If the NAPs
aren't useful they won't be used.  I should be delighted were the
technical community to arrive at a demonstrably better architecture that
would be affordable by, and adequately serve, the NSF community. 


More information about the NANOG mailing list