if the owner of MAE-EAST can drop me a note....

Wed Sep 21 15:25:20 UTC 1994

> Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" 
> and "no settlements" agreements?  Or - more to the point - have they agreed 
> not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers 
> they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure.  I.e., is it 
> permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make 
> "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers?

MAE-East participants are not required to subscribe to "must carry" or
"no settlement" agreements.  Participants peer with some set of other
participants with exclusively bi-lateral agreements.  

As it turns out, at least in the case of AlterNet, we have *only* "no
settlements" type of peering arrangements.  I don't know of any
"settlements" based agreement over MAE-East, but that's not to say
that they don't exist.  I'm pretty certain that AlterNet wouldn't
enter into such an agreement.

I don't know how MAE-East participants/customers would make
arrangements with the DC NAP customers, since they're on a seperate,
unconnected level-2 infrastructure.

> If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of 
> the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what.

NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some
sort.  I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East.  It
might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase"
available to help combat stupid legislative attempts.  Again, that's
my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at
UUNET/AlterNet

Louis A. Mamakos                              louie at alter.net
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