Gordon Cook cook at Mcs.Net
Sun Sep 11 23:56:44 UTC 1994

Peter reminds me that he wrote

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 saying Please note the "in part ..."

Peter I did what you ask -- saying you said 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.

Please note the phrase "are **partially** meeting" 

You wrote:  Steve Wolff has said that the NSF should be using
existing industry built facilities instead of growing them in
numerous forums.           

I paraphased from memory: "wolff is making statements that the 
feds shouldn't build facilities that private industry can do 

You seem say this is another misquote....sorry ....again.  I don't 
see it that way at all and with the two side by side readers may 
judge for themselves.

you say:

the net effect on the California and DC NAP awardees appears
to be minimal and the ISPs that are to connect to the NAPs save 
themselves interconnection costs.  This in turn should reduce the 
cost to the people to whom NSF awards funds for Internet 
Do you find fault with this line of reasoning?  It may be  easier 
believe in a conspiracy, but you might also want to look for 

Let me say that I endorse Louie's answer as to why this doesn't 
work as you suggest...... and that your post still sounds to me like 
a trial balloon for an NSF policy change on the NAPs....having said 
this I be glad to return to lurking.

Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ  08618 USA
NEW E-mail: cook at
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 edu.,non-profit & small corp.
$85 Individual

More information about the NANOG mailing list