Louis A. Mamakos louie at
Sun Sep 11 22:54:12 UTC 1994

> As stated in my earlier note, NSF's goal is to obtain NAP
> functionality.  This functionality is technology independent.  The
> whole purpose of the note was to point out that the desired
> functionality can be met by taking advantage of an existing facility.

But it really is differnt than a NAP.  There is policy stuff stuck to
a "NAP".  MAE-East has no requirement for traffic statistics reporting
to the NSF on a periodic basis.  Do we want them to?  I don't know;
personally, I don't think its their business.  I don't want to have
MFS have to do this sort of stuff.

> 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.  This is the clear
> gain that you were asking for: simplification for some of the ISPs.

Sorry, I still don't get it.  How is this simpler for *me*.  I don't
have a compelling need to "check-off" anything.  I don't see how this
simpler for any of the existing MAE-East participants, either.

> Since it appears the act of putting a NAP label on MAE-east does not
> seem to have an impact on the functioning of MAE-east, is there any
> reason not to do so?

Shall we just get down to it: it's as much an emotinal issue as
anything.  MAE-East was built almost in spite of the the existing
ANS/NSFNET NSF-sponsored network.  Any now they want to come along to
a facility which "we" built already, which has been a popular success
and model of inter-ISP cooperation and burden it with this government
label which none of us seeks.  And then hold it up as a successful
implementation of the network architecture proposed by the NSF; it
would be a farce.

NSF threw a party in Washington DC called the NAP, and nobody came.
Please let us be.  The reason not label it a NAP is because some of us
just don't WANT you to.  It's our party.

If other MAE-East party-goers, er, particpants have a different opinion,
I'd be happy to hear it.

Peter, at this point you probably should post a polite note to the
mae-east mailing list to see what other think about this harmless idea
of yours; I don't know how many of them are on this list.

Louis A. Mamakos                              louie at
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 mailing list