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
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.
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 mcs.com
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 edu.,non-profit & small corp.
More information about the NANOG