Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
enke at mci.net
Wed May 1 16:17:59 UTC 1996
IMHO, it is a fair statement that these peers face great uncertainty.
There should not be any loss of connectivity as their transit provider
should take care of business.
> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Nathan Stratton <nathan at netrail.net>
> To: Jeremy Porter <jerry at fc.net>
> CC: loco at MFST.COM, nanog at merit.edu
> On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
> > >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be q
> > >|} > 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