NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
Robert E. Seastrom
rs at seastrom.com
Thu Jul 26 17:07:30 UTC 2001
"Nipper, Arnold" <arnold at nipper.de> writes:
> Sean Donelan schrieb:
> > exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very
> > large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have
> > NSF's "stamp of approval."
> Why should LINX, AMS-IX, DE-CIX or any other European IXP need NSF's "stamp
> of approval"?
At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid
for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were
envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A
lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp
of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and
Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind
of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought
this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs.
More information about the NANOG