Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
nathan at netrail.net
Wed May 1 13:14:44 UTC 1996
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
> >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be quite
> >|} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages.
> Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong.
> There are very real engineering reasons for not peering
> if someone is at one NAP/MAE. Also since Sprint and MCI
> do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them
> they could get sued for discriminating against some competators
> (not all, makes a big legal difference).
Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with
MCI and are at only 1 NAP?
More information about the NANOG