the Internet Backbone

Christian Nielsen cnielsen at
Sat Apr 6 00:33:53 UTC 1996

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> Last time this term came up, I opined that there was no "backbone" any more
> and that 1996's Internet had a "hairball topology."  Vadim, among others,
> disagreed with me but we didn't pursue the topic.  Perhaps we should have.

	This is what I have said. I think there is 'no' backbone but 
there are many NSPs that have connections to the major NAPs. There are 
also compaines that connect to more than two NSPs and NAPs. Lets fiqure 
this out, is there no 'backbone' or is there a 'backbone'? 
> And in that sense, there is no backbone in 1996.

> We tend to reserve the term "NSP" for folks who peer at enough NAPs that they
> have no default route and aren't buying transit from anybody.  We tend to use
> the term "ISP" when we mean someone in the packet or even the session business
> who _does_ have to buy transit from somebody.  Once in a while I hear the term
> "backbone provider" used synonomously with "NSP" (as defined above).

	I think it should be NSP.They have National Netowrks, we have 
State wide netowrks. Simple.
Christian Nielsen
Vyzynz International Inc.       cnielsen at,CN46,KB7HAP
Phone 801-568-0999              Fax 801-568-0953
Private Email - Christian at Nielsen.Net   BOFH - cnielsen at PS :)

More information about the NANOG mailing list