NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
sschnell at cisco.com
Fri Jul 27 00:28:19 UTC 2001
At the time we were developing the architecture for the NY NAP ATM was
supported only via that nasty DXI interface. Costly, less reliable, and not
easy to configure. Some of you may recall Tim Salo's working group
discussions in that regard.
I recall seeing a UUnet router at the Sprint NAP. At least, that's what the
dymo label on the front of the 7505 said!
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 15:33
To: rs at seastrom.com
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 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.
If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because
several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET
was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East
alternate NAP, which used FDDI.
There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch
based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
More information about the NANOG