cook at Mcs.Net
Sun Sep 11 19:55:57 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. 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. 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.
So the NSF to save face wants to call MAE-East an NSF NAP? And Steve
wolff is making statements that the feds shouldn't build facilities that
private industry can do better!?
Your note reads like a policy trial balloon on behalf of Steve. Whew!
how the world can change!
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.
More information about the NANOG