Alan Hannan alan at
Wed Jan 30 06:35:04 UTC 2002

Something bothers me about this thread, and I think it is the
assertion that there is a proper definition for 'NAP' as
differentiated from 'IXP' or what not.

It seems as silly as trying to define Tier 1 v. Tier 2.

The NSF's documents do not define terminology or protocols in a
manner like the IETF for the operation of the greater Internet.

I believe the referenced documents discuss requirements for the
transition of the backbone over time, but i don't have them in
front of me, nor am I eidetic like some folks seem.

People should be free to define these terms as they see fit,
with no central authority defining what is what (and I don't
think there should be).

A scientific community will communicate (only|best) through a
common vernacular, but to disallow ambiguity in certain terms is
to require unanimity, which will not occur.  Given that the
Internet is more of a business community than a scientific
community, appropriate ambiguity should be openly accepted.

The original 4 NSF sanctioned NAPs should retain a historical
differentiation from all others due to their significance in
transitioning the original NSFNet Internet to privately funded

To assert a 'proper use' of the term "NAP" oversteps logic
and implies an arrogantly fascist assertion of perspective.

So I think.


ps. in a few gogle searches for the paper, I did find a
    reminiscent article on the assumptions and arguments back in
    1994 circa NSFNet cessation of Internet Backbone funding at:

More information about the NANOG mailing list