cook at Mcs.Net
Thu Sep 8 13:39:34 UTC 1994
That is an interesting response. Provider P could be PIPEX right? And
that makes it seem to me that I undserstood correctly what Steve Wolff
meant when he implied that a foreign net might get better connectivity
from a NAP.
Yet public an private response to this question have NOT uniformly shared
this interpretation. Why? Because I guess folk out their don't clearly
understand. Wouldn't it be helpful for Steve Wolff to come out with an
official policy statement on this matter, or at least to endore what you
just wrote as official policy??
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
NEW E-mail: cook at mcs.com
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 edu.,non-profit & small corp.
On Wed, 7 Sep 1994, Peter S. Ford wrote:
> The regionals are responsible making sure that they provide access and
> transit to/from the NSFNET NAPs to all of the regional's US R&E
> customers as part of their cooperative agreements with NSF for RNP
> support. If they have an agreement with an NSP then presumably their
> NSP will be encumbered by the regional to meet this condition.
> Thus, if NSP N is provisioning regional R, then N must touch down at
> all NAPs and advertise connectivity to all of R's R&E customers and
> accept traffic to R's R&E customers at the NAPs. If a provider
> P pays for a connection to the NAP, then it should be able to peer
> with N for the purposes of getting traffic to/from R's R&E customers.
> Traffic between N and P for traffic other than R's R&E traffic is
> not part of the deal. Presumably this "other" traffic would be
> part of a broader inter-provider agreement between N and P.
> The goal for the above is to provide a reasonable level of
> non-discriminatory access to the US R&E community that is being
> supported by the NSF awards to the RNPs.
More information about the NANOG